Thread: Palin: ‘Obviously, We’ve Got To Stand With Our North Korean Allies’

omm....left hand is North Korea which is bad....right hand is South Korea which they told me is best Korea...left forearm is west Korea...we are allies with them......

Palin is a bad movie that just keeps getting worse.

I hope this Palin over-exposure become "Palin Fatique," and she fades away. But it may be a couple or few years. Perhaps less. Who knows.

God forbid she gets the nomination. She'd be Barry's wet dream if she were to get in 2012. I don't see it happening tho.

Palin as the republican nominee hands the democrates 4 more horrible years. no palin, no obama in 2012

Originally Posted by bio-chem

Palin as the republican nominee hands the democrates 4 more horrible years. no palin, no obama in 2012

there is no way she would get it.

I agree with bio-chem & Prince.

Her negatives are not only high (polling) but a high percentage of the voting populate does not consider her qualified.

The GOP machine knows this as well. Palin can raise money for GOP candidate, get speaking fees, and motivate her base.

Politicans again? To elected office? I don't see it happening. She's ca$hing in on the books and speaking fees, also.

edited b/c video is out of date.

She's become nothing more than a publicity whore. She's about as qualified to be president as the one we have now, and that doesn't say much. You don't get elected as governor of a state, quit midterm because the media isn't kind to you, then run for president. It's not gonna happen. If she got the nom, it would be a blessing for the dems.

I'd love to see Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or especially Bobby Jindal on the ticket next time. Bobby Jindal is a smart, no bullshit m'fucker. Unfortunately, like a lot of good candidates, he may be too smart to be electable.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

She's become nothing more than a publicity whore.

Agree. And her daughter and Levi are getting attention. Palin Fatigue....?

She's about as qualified to be president as the one we have now

What makes a person qualified can be subjective, but on this statement I beg to differ.

Look at the difference in education, knowledge, and how well read both of them are. Very different.

I'd love to see Mitt Romney,

He's seems Presidential, IMO. Only problems IMO, is Romney is not a W.A.S.P. and to the anathema of Evangelical Christians and other components of the Christian GOP right, he's a Mormon. As many as 2/3rds of these folks claim they could not/would not vote for a Mormon. That was in 2008, however.

Ron Paul

Me too. But he's outside of the mainstream and criticizes the Military Industrial Complex. He's never be allowed by the GOP establishment.

Bobby Jindal

Bobby the Brain. Policy Wonk. Smart guy. Inarticulate, not charismatic, extreme Catholic, not a Presidential politician.

Unfortunately, like a lot of good candidates, he may be too smart to be electable.

I completely agree.

Bobby Jindal may not be the most charismatic guy. But, inarticulate? I beg to differ. He put Obama in his place during the oil spill debacle. I'd say he's probably too articulate and sharp to be electable, much like Ronnie Paul.

Obama may be better educated than Palin, but like most academics, he offers no solutions for real world problems.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Bobby Jindal may not be the most charismatic guy. But, inarticulate? I beg to differ. He put Obama in his place during the oil spill debacle. I'd say he's probably too articulate and sharp to be electable, much like Ronnie Paul.

Obama may be better educated than Palin, but like most academics, he offers no solutions for real world problems.

Jindal had his chance in the spot light and bombed big time....he was the future star but after that appearance he laid low for a while.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

He put Obama in his place during the oil spill debacle. I'd say he's probably too articulate and sharp to be electable, much like Ronnie Paul.

.

He bullshitted

There's nothing like a good old-fashioned disaster hitting you right in the pocketbook to make you rethink your opposition to government assistance. Remember when Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal briefly became a right-wing hero for threatening to refuse stimulus money that would boost unemployment payments? He even made criticism of the stimulus the keynote of his response to President Obama's first congressional address.

"In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the national Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs."

This week, Jindal is singing a different tune. As one of the greatest oil spills in U.S. history starts lapping at the shores of Louisiana, Gulf shrimpers and oyster fisheries are shutting down shop -- possibly for months. The total cost to Gulf state economies could run into the billions. So Jindal wants help.

From the New York Times:

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana declared a state of emergency and mobilized the Louisiana National Guard to participate in response efforts.

On Friday, he also requested federal assistance for state fishermen, asking the Secretary of Commerce to declare a commercial fisheries failure.

The parallels are obvious. After Wall Street broke the U.S. economy -- call it a "financial sector failure" -- Obama pushed through a stimulus bill aimed at jump-starting demand and providing assistance to the millions of Americans who lost their jobs and homes as a result of the financial crisis. This week, after BP broke the Gulf economy, Jindal is seeking aid for citizens of his own state. It's always a different story when your own ox is the one getting gored.

The fun doesn't stop there: Wall Street lobbied (and is still lobbying) against regulation. BP resisted federal attempts to increase safety regulations for oil rigs. The financial collapse changed the political calculus of the Washington-Wall Street nexus. The BP oil spill sent "drill, baby, drill" straight to the dustbin of history.

Ryan Avent observed at FreeExchange this morning that it's uncanny how events have conspired to dramatize the necessity for reform in several different domains during the Obama administration. Healthcare reform was all but dead until Anthem Blue Cross announced a 40 percent premium hike. The SEC's suit alleging Goldman Sachs committed securities fraud helped propel banking reform forward. Arizona's outrageous immigration law has put immigration reform on the front burner. And West Virginia's coal disaster and the BP oil spill are stark reminders of the drawbacks to over-reliance on fossil fuels.

In each instance, the case for government action is bolstered, not by any nanny-state desire "to increase dependence" but because consecutive disasters underline the very reason we have government in the first place. I'd like to think catastrophe wasn't necessary for policy progress, but I'm beginning to be convinced that humans just aren't wired any other way

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Bobby Jindal may not be the most charismatic guy. But, inarticulate? I beg to differ. He put Obama in his place during the oil spill debacle. I'd say he's probably too articulate and sharp to be electable, much like Ronnie Paul.

Gears,

You have a point. I should not have used the word "inarticulate." Bad choice of words. It's his message, or how he explains it, in the few times I've heard him speak. I assume he uses a speech writer for certain things (like the GOP response to the state of the union a last year or before).

Obama may be better educated than Palin, but like most academics, he offers no solutions for real world problems.

Agree.

But I'll add: Like most academics, politicians offer no solution to the real world problems.

The politicians of the US have intentionally ignored the most pressing problems of the US for several decades (SS, Medicare) and in some cases (national debt, deficit spending) have even made things worse.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Obama may be better educated than Palin, but like most academics, he offers no solutions for real world problems.

much like the entire GOP and their desire to privatize everything and deregulate the markets. we are reaping the benefits right now of GOP sponsored deregulation since the 80's.

Yes, more govt involvement will fix everything. The federal govt has proven itself so efficient at solving all of our problems. They're doing wonders with our health care as we speak. The stimulus has this economy humming now. Medicare, medicaid, and social security are the greatest success stories of the 20th century. Maybe just one more Obama czar to oversee another bureaucracy is all it will take to turn things around. Jimmy Carter was just about to preside over the greatest economic boom in history if we'd just given him another term to implement more govt regulation over the markets. Politicians always have the answers. They just need more control over our lives.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Yes, more govt involvement will fix everything. The federal govt has proven itself so efficient at solving all of our problems. They're doing wonders with our health care as we speak. The stimulus has this economy humming now. Medicare, medicaid, and social security are the greatest success stories of the 20th century. Maybe just one more Obama czar to oversee another bureaucracy is all it will take to turn things around. Jimmy Carter was just about to preside over the greatest economic boom in history if we'd just given him another term to implement more govt regulation over the markets. Politicians always have the answers. They just need more control over our lives.

problems with the size of the Fed Gov, maybe tell the leaders in YOUR party to stop growing it every single time they assume control? The stimulus should have been bigger god knows what McCain would have done make it maybe half the size. The Czars you speak of 90% were created under GWB only a couple new ones were added under Obama.

If you cut out all the earmarks, there'd be almost nothing left of the stimuls anyway. So, I don't see how making it bigger would've helped, especially considering that not even half of it has been spent two years into it. Yes, GWB grew the federal govt immensely also. That's what hurt the GOP. They were growing the fed govt and spending like democrats.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

If you cut out all the earmarks, there'd be almost nothing left of the stimuls anyway. So, I don't see how making it bigger would've helped, especially considering that not even half of it has been spent two years into it. Yes, GWB grew the federal govt immensely also. That's what hurt the GOP. They were growing the fed govt and spending like democrats.

nothing new about earmarks not quite sure why all of a sudden after 8 years with a republican as POTUS it's totally up to the Dems to fix spending in washington all at once. with a broke middle class most economists agreed it was not the time for that battle. You should see the full list of GOP leaders that requested stimulus monies after voting against the bill here are just a few of the GOP hypocrites that talk out of both sides of their mouths, Scott Brown, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence and Bobby Jindal.

considering the Act is the combination of spending and tax credits not all the monies are slated to be "spent" in the traditional sense.

Yes, there were a ton of earmarks over the last 8 years. It was Obama himself who said "there will be no more earmarks" in 2008. For a "stimulus" bill to have any stimulating effect, the $ needs to go out the door quickly. Not two years into it. That's the problem with govt intervention to an extent. Once we're aware that we're even in a recession, chances are, we're already halfway into it anyway and it's hard enough for a spending package to have much of an impact at that point. But, waiting two years to start spending it makes it pretty much moot.

Originally Posted by LAM

You should see the full list of GOP leaders that requested stimulus monies after voting against the bill here are just a few of the GOP hypocrites that talk out of both sides of their mouths, Scott Brown, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence and Bobby Jindal. .

hypocrite nothing. thats exactly how I want my elected official to act. Vote against something that is only going to bring us into further debt and have little impact overall, but once it's forced upon us i want him to bite ans scrape to get every dollar spent in my location. If my tax dollars are going to be spent in bogus 'stimulus' i want them spent locally to me.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

hypocrite nothing. thats exactly how I want my elected official to act. Vote against something that is only going to bring us into further debt and have little impact overall, but once it's forced upon us i want him to bite ans scrape to get every dollar spent in my location. If my tax dollars are going to be spent in bogus 'stimulus' i want them spent locally to me.

but they aren't against it to begin with, they just "claim" to be to get the vote of the fiscal conservatives who obviously have the long term memory comparable to that of the gnat. republicans LOVE to spend they just have to make the Dems look bad while doing and trick the uneducated masses that what they are doing is good for the middle class. the funny thing that people never pick up on is you never hear the GOP talk about putting more money into the hands of the middle class all they talk about is spending and deficits.

the likely effects of the John Boehner "Plan"

http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/pm171.pdf

So that makes it okay for this administration to take the reckless spending to unprecedented levels? I guess two wrongs to make a right then.

Bush spent those monies before Obama was even sworn in..

Critics Still Wrong on What

Breaking Down the Deficit

Bush Deficit Hurting Obama: Reports

Originally Posted by LAM

but they aren't against it to begin with, they just "claim" to be to get the vote of the fiscal conservatives who obviously have the long term memory comparable to that of the gnat. republicans LOVE to spend they just have to make the Dems look bad while doing and trick the uneducated masses that what they are doing is good for the middle class. the funny thing that people never pick up on is you never hear the GOP talk about putting more money into the hands of the middle class all they talk about is spending and deficits.

the likely effects of the John Boehner "Plan"

http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/pm171.pdf

against it or not they voted against it. thats what i care about. i don't care what they are for or against personally as long as they vote how I want them to.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

against it or not they voted against it. thats what i care about. i don't care what they are for or against personally as long as they vote how I want them to.

just wondering, with the poorest middle class since the great depression and with an economy based on middle class consumption and spending. where do the monies come from to keep the economy moving if the Fed doesn't spend?

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

So that makes it okay for this administration to take the reckless spending to unprecedented levels?

Originally Posted by LAM

Bush spent those monies before Obama was even sworn in..

I am trying to figure out how come no one complained about Bushes spending at that time?
In fact Obama has been accused of following his same spending.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

I am trying to figure out how come no one complained about Bushes spending at that time?
In fact Obama has been accused of following his same spending.

most of the current deficit and forecasts are carry over from GWB. Bush Tax Cuts, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Prescription Drug Act (Medicare Part D) will account for 7T in deficits from 2010-2020. the Dems have to deal with all of that plus decreased tax revenues during recession and increased deficit spending (stimulus, etc.) to keep the economy going.