Palin couldn't even answer
 

a question from a third grader correctly.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...says-vice.html

And your point is?.....................Sarah Palin is an ambitious, aggressive, hands on and active politician.

All she is expressing is that active support she would contribute to this office.

She got the answer wrong
 

she didn't even know the responsibilities under the Constitution of the office she was seeking. This is in response to the posters on this forum who continue to argue how accompolished a politician she is.

Trying to teach anyone about Palin's abundance of ignorance is like trying to teach a pig to sing...you won't succeed and you will anger the pig. We both have better and more productive things to do.

Did you know that the Vice President is the PRESIDENT of the Senate according to the Constitution? I think she was absolutely correct! Just because "traditionally" they have played a less active role does not make her answer incorrect. She believes in the Constitution. Too bad liberals don't.
JJ

Her statement was about the Vice President and they were absolutely correct under the Constitution. She believes in the Constitution and not in the "traditional" role Vice President's have taken in RECENT years.
Do you believe in the Constitution?
JJ

Ladydoc was right
 

about you. There it is in black and white, and you can't accept that she was wrong. You and Richie make a great pair.

Hah!!; I wasn't even on this post yet. Besides; you're the one having dreams about her all night, aren't you? You know you are. I hear Gov. Palin may have to take out a restraining order against you, you naughty boy. You need to find something to take your mind off your obsessive compulsion to follow her and try to learn everything you can about her.

BUT!!!........If you can't; The New York Times editorial staff that are also Palin stalkers are looking for you. You would be perfect. Just the sort of Palin fan they're searching for.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-mail-records/

How was Palin wrong?
 

HOW was she wrong? It is in the CONSTITUTION!!
JJ

If the opposition's Palin magnifying glass and same standard of criticism were applied to ANY of the 545 in Washington the results would be no different than the trashing done to what Palin knows/doesn't know.

The higher the profile the more severe the criticism....either R or D!

I find the hypocritical stance against Palin amusing and more often disgustingly partisan.

What about all the lechers? Cheats on taxes, spouses? Sex driven fanatics?
Liars? Incompetents? Phonies? Currently in office.

Why do we not hear about the gaffs and stupid commentary by Obama?

ANY incumbent makes Palin and others not in office look good....ANY!!!!!

btk

Very Intelligent post
 

just what I've come to expect from you! I guess you just ruined your attempts to pawn yourself off as some kind of intellectual.

Another example..
 

Another example of attacking the speaker and not the speech.
JJ

Wait JimJoe, I'm still pondering Richie trying to pawn himself off as an intellectual.

You can call me..
 

You can call me Jim.
:)

On a recent "Imus in the Morning" prolgram, Don Imus asked Bill O'Reilly, what he liked about Sara Palin. O'Reilly gave the usual likes often attributed to Palin. But O'Reilly went a step further. He mentioned that his biggest dislike was her inability to answer a simple question. He stated that the last time she was on his show, When he asked her a straight question, she always answered with a prepared speech. he said it made him mad and he ended the interview. Maybe this is what happens when she tries to answer the question.

O'Reilly also said Palin is becoming less popular because she is becoming more and more like Obama by avoiding the tough and critical questions and not engaging in a real conversation about issues (also like Obama). O'Reilly says this is going to hurt her with independents and Republicans. I guess this is the cue for some to say how they couldn't care any less what O'Reilly thinks. But I thought I'd add my two cents. Isn't that right Jim?

Does anyone know that Obama thinks this country has 58 states?

Does anyone know how quietly the media let him get away with saying it?

Sarcasm dripping........yep we sure need to worry about Palin.

I was just thinking the other day....I really don't care what Bill O'Reilly has to say. :doh:

Wow..
 

Wow.. now there is something We can agree on!!
JJ

Don't forget that the former governor of Alaska - supposedly a college graduate - still thinks that humans and dinosaurs were on Earth at the same time.

I've never portrayed myself as an intellectual. Thank you for perceiving me as one, though.

I'm just trying to engage you in a way you understand. I may have succeeded.

Call the NY Times. They're waiting for your call.

I agree wholeheartedly. Democrats should be focusing on such as things as massive unemployment, massive home foreclosures, massive debt........ oh well...... you know.

BTW it's "annoys" the pig....... just ask any "third grader."

Actually, this country's had enough of the Democrat's meddling in the private sector which has caused and accelerated such things as massive unemployment, massive home foreclosures, massive debt, etc., etc............

You Forgot Saved
 

the domestic automobile industry.

I'll try to remember that as I'm thinking of the many billions of dollars we'll never get back from that stupid deal that screwed the company's shareholders and put millions in the pockets of the auto union.

So why is Canada growing THEIR job market at many times the rate we are? You better believe they're far more involved in corporations than we are!

If you're so sure you're comparing apples and apples, your tell me.

This is exactly my point. It "low taxes" was the cure-all, we'd be swimming in it (taxation as a percentage of GDP is pretty damn low right now - lowest since the 1950s if I remember correctly)

Yet how come high-tax, high-union Canada is doing so well? I know part of it was that they didn't have the same kind of real-estate problem we did. But that's because THEIR regulators didn't allow their banks to do what ours did.

I read an article today about Canada shrinking it's government in the 1990s, setting the stage for more stability. It didn't even mean losing a lot of government jobs - it was more along the lines of handing out fewer and smaller checks to people.

President Bush- not President Obama- enacted TARP and signed the Bank bailout into law towards the end of his presidency.

How are so many people misinformed about the TARP "bailout"? It's not just Fox-watching Republicans (who are often grossly misinformed by the channel) but Democrats as well. Doesn't anybody check their facts anymore? Or do people just choose the facts that support the narrative they want to believe? Bush bailed out the banks and fueled the greatest Recession in generations. Why blame it all on the guy trying to clean up his mess?

Because Bush gave away the cow, but Obama gave away the farm.

So it's not apples and apples. Canada didn't have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Thanks for the clarification.

Those two were just one part of the problem. NOBODY from EITHER party played the role of 'the grownup'. Nobody told people "No, you can NOT afford this mortgage". Even that was more complicated than it sounds. I know personally of a case of a woman trying to "flip" houses - but she was putting serious work into the house she bought. The real estate agent kept telling her that she couldn't put her house on the market until X was done to it - then Y had to be done, then Z. The agent had only HER interests at heart (a bigger comission) and ignored the fact that the owner was running out of capital. Unfortunately, the owner 'woke up' a little too late and the collapse was underway. On the good side, she didn't lose EVERYTHING but she DID lose what she had hoped to work up to her retirement nest egg.

[I went off on a tangent with some personal stories but decided to delete them for brevity]

You could euphemistically say we got carried away with the concept of "The American Dream". You also hear people say they thought real-estate would never go down. How old were THOSE people? Did they not remember the real-estate problems in the early 1990s? Have our memories gotten THAT short?