Oops, should be Sam Stein.

Even conservative analysts acknowledged that the statement simply did not hold true.

. . .

How politically significant a "gaffe" it is remains to be seen. The major concern about Palin's position on the ticket is that she lacks the economic and foreign policy wherewithal to serve as vice president. This certainly doesn't help on that front. At the same time, the remark went almost entirely unnoticed over the weekend and discussions on the developments of the housing market can be difficult to process for even the most attuned voter.

There are varying explanations that could be offered for Palin's defense. As O'Driscoll noted, both Fannie and Freddie "were hybrid institutions because they had private ownership but... an implicit government guarantee which people thought at the end of the day was explicit." Meanwhile, as Baker noted, as of July the two lenders were being offered low market interest rates by the fed again, theoretically, at the taxpayer's expense. But, he added, "I kind of doubt she had any sense of that."

I guess Palin knows as much about the economy as McCain does?

YEAH!

Let the Market Decide!

Sincerely

The "conservative" of Last Week

There they go again attacking her because of her daughter.

It is sexist to expect her to know something about the economy.

don't you have a question that is about fashion or lipstick shades for fall?

--the right---

Another rethuglicunt sock puppet.
I wonder how long she's going to be able stand dick cheney's arm up her ass to his shoulder?

I wonder how long she's going to be able stand dick cheney's arm up her ass to his shoulder?

#5 | Posted by frankf55

She's had somewhere between 3 - 5 babies. It shouldn't be that much of a stretch.

SAME STEIN? McCain is Jewish now?

YEAH!

But, but she says she will Reform ------ what she doesn't understand!

Sincerely

vernisgodblt2butch

I here Barrack thinks there are 57 States.

(He meant his Muslim states.)

FACT!

"I here"

Marco. . .

Polo. . .

A taxpayer bailout in all 57 states! Whoops, wrong gaffe. A taxpayer bailout of my muslim faith - whoops wrong gaffe again. Right here in St. Loui...er Kansas City - not that one either. Um, we are short on translators in Afghanistan because they are all in Iraq - what, they don't speak the same language? - damn not that gaffe either?

And speaking of reform: If you talk to Warren [Buffet], hell tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all let the market work, however way its going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,-- Obama said. That way youre not impeding efficiency, and youre achieving equity on the back end.-- - BO

"I here Barrack thinks there are 57 States."

YEAH!

And how much did that cost every tax payer?

wow!

And sold a plane on ebay for profit huh? WRONG!

wow!

This lady just might lie her way all the way to the top. Sounds like a fine Republican to me!!!!!

This woman might just set women BACK 20 years.

And how much did that cost every tax payer?

#12 | Posted by Redneckville

To my knowledge, as much as Sarah's mistake. None.

Didn't B Hussein O admit he is a Muslim yesterday???

Oh yeah, HE DID!

FACT!!!

Maybe she was too "flip" on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

This woman might just set women BACK 20 years.

#13 | Posted by Manypaths

How? By being the embodiment of what the woman's movement stands for? (Apart from killing innocent lives rights)

A working mother who is successful and may accede to the second highest political office in the country?

Libs are insane.

"By being the embodiment of what the woman's movement stands for?"

Now, that is funny.

"Libs are insane."

Posted by ELCIDCE90
=======================

Truer words where never spoken BUB!

FACTORAMA!

"I here Barrack thinks there are 57 States."

YEAH!

And how much did that cost every tax payer?

#12 | Posted by Redneckville

Nothing in at least 7 States. Unless they were included in his economic plan.

Now, that is funny.

#18 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Yep. Like I said - insane

The second wave of feminist activity began in the early 1960s and lasted through the late 1980s. During this time feminists campaigned against cultural and political inequalities. The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their own personal lives as deeply politicized, and reflective of a sexist structure of power. If first-wave feminism focused upon absolute rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination.[4] The feminist activist and author, Carol Hanisch coined the slogan "The Personal is Political" which became synonymous with the second wave.[5][6] Second-wave feminists saw women's cultural and political inequalities as inextricably linked and encouraged women to understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply politicized and as reflecting sexist power structures. - wiki

1966 The National Organization for Women (NOW) is founded by a group of feminists including Betty Friedan. The largest women's rights group in the U.S., NOW seeks to end sexual discrimination, especially in the workplace, by means of legislative lobbying, litigation, and public demonstrations.

"The embodiment of teh women's movement....?"

Palin? Sure. She's proven women can lie for transient political advantage as well as any man.

She's proven women can lie for transient political advantage as well as any man.

#22 | Posted by Zed

She's not a button on Hillary's pantsuit when it comes to that.

Hillary? She should have thought about killing a moose. You guys would have made her VP and Secretary of Defense.

Gloria Steinem on Palin:

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

But I think we're close to something here, so I don't wishe to distract you. Wisgood, have YOU caught Gidget in a whopper yet? If so, which one was it?

Wisgood, have YOU caught Gidget in a whopper yet? If so, which one was it?

#26 | Posted by Zed

No Zed, I've been trying to keep up with the accusations from you folks. And I'll admit I've stopped fact checking after the Special needs budget cut allegation was proven to be bullshit.

"I'll admit I quit fact-checking....."

Because you're sure Palin is pure as the white Alaskan snow?

But, come to think of it, Palin has yet to make any claims to honesty I'm aware of. In a certain (common) mode of thinking, that lets her off the hook.

GAL-
Your Steinem quote makes reference to Palin's disbelieving global warming. I read the same thing in some syndicated columnist's piece this morning.

Is that what she really said? I don't know... I'm asking. Because there's a big difference between disbelieving global warming and disbelieving MANMADE global warming.

Conveniently leaving out one word greatly alters the meaning. Same thing in the immigration debate. People say, "Why are you against immigration? It's been great for the US throughout history."

It's ILLEGAL immigration we're against. The people coming here illegally and the corporations who knowingly employ them. Legal, orderly immigration is indeed a good thing.

She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

That is so dead on.

Sarah Schlafly, Phyllis Palin.

Because you're sure Palin is pure as the white Alaskan snow?

#28 | Posted by Zed

No, because you lefties started with the arguement that Trig was Bristol's kid.

Oorah-
My understanding of Palin's comment is that she does not believe in any human contribution to global warming

WIS-
How many lies and innuendos have been shot down already? I misplaced my scorecard.

IT's been an interesting day. The Right seems to accept Palin wanted to deep-six that poor librarian for not fully comprehending the new mayor's genius (jumping W.'s, Batman).

However, they also say the down give a shit, once again establishing why modern Republicanism would be best served by a full can of Raid.

Thuis lefty didn't start with that accusation, Wisgood. This lefty did wonder aloud why Palin procured an amniosentesis if she wasn't also contemplating abortion. Got any ideas about that one?

Oohrah-
re: "How many lies and innuendos have been shot down already? I misplaced my scorecard."

You mean like how she boldly rejected the "bridge to nowhere" even though she previously campaigned on it and then kept the money for other pork projects?

Is that what she really said? I don't know... I'm asking. Because there's a big difference between disbelieving global warming and disbelieving MANMADE global warming.

I don't know either, Oohrah. Maybe someone can ask her in an upcoming campaign stop, interview or the debate.

"They also say they don't give a shit...." In fact, they say that often. Have to hand it to you guys, you know what you admire.

WIS-
How many lies and innuendos have been shot down already? I misplaced my scorecard.

#34 | Posted by OohRah

Oohrah, I lost count too. But as much as Obama and Biden wants this shit to stop, I'm assuming they've all been. The flock won't follow the Shepard.

"My understanding of Palin's comment is that she does not believe in any human contribution to global warming" - BET

Perhaps. Maybe not. That's part of the problem when people assign a position based on ??? and run with it.

We debate this topic on the DR from time to time. Is the earth warming? Assuming it it, then is man the cause of it or not?

It's not a big issue for me - I'll go along with the earth being warmer from what I've seen here and elsewhere. Where I do get concerned is when man is blamed and, as a consequence, we're told to significantly alter our lifestyles, economy, etc. All the while promoters of the idea stand to benefit. Smells like Joan Rivers' coochie.

"She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger."

Spot on. The radical right is just salivating at the prospect on McCain having to leave office from death or illness and the Caribou Crackpot taking over.

I'm surprised that more hasn't been made about Palin's husband's membership in a secessionist party, or Palin's address to their convention.

I made a big deal out of it, BETELG---In fact it's at the root of my dislike of her, as it would be to anyone that, uh, likes this country.

"To my knowledge, as much as Sarah's mistake. None."
#14 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at

YEAH!

But that level of undertanding Has!

Four More Years Indeed!

Oorah-
You've been sold on the Texaco funded marketing bs, so I'm not even gonna try to argue you out of it.

That's among the first questions I'd ask Palin---Something like, "Did you adsress those secessionists in hope of making them love the Union?"

Oohrah, my mistake. I really believe the Wilson Sisters don't want the Palin to use the song Barracuda.

ZED-
I meant in the "liberal" media.

I'd like to ask Palin why she's married to a secessionist, but I'm told family is out of bounds. So I guess it's OK if hubby also becomes a Scientologist.

Sarah Palin is God's gift to the GOP and has energized the base to the point that Obama just made a cannoli in his pants!

FACT!!!!!!!!

ROCK ON!!!!!

CASE CLOSED!

NULL-
In your view what constitutes "radical right?"

"Sarah Palin is God's gift to the GOP and has energized the base to the point that Obama just made a cannoli in his pants! " JAMES

Here is a comparison of the VPs on various issues (lots of unknowns for Palin):

7 Resources for Learning More About Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin

BET-
It's just that the left has thrown the kitchen sink at her with it being mostly garbage. Any substantive criticism will be lost, for the most part, on the general populace because you've cried wolf so often.

It's what I was alluding to last week. Frivilous piling on has generated support for the likeable Palin. Credible criticism becomes lost in a sea of what's perceived as personal attacks... like it or not.

All pols, Palin included, leave behind a record which should be open for scrutiny. If your side had attacked on issues vs so much of what's gone on, your ongoing arguments might be met with more receptiveness.

As to the "bridge to nowhere" there is a righty spin to that, which I'm sure you're going to hear before much longer. Hannity I think was going to talk about it today but I wasn't tuned in.

I agree I want to hear her in some interviews. I do have my concerns it'll be a "gotcha" sort of thing where they'll ask her the name of some obscure person or issue in hopes of tripping her up. The mainstream media favors Dems... but by the same token Palin's the new kid on the block and perhaps the interviewers don't want to be seen as doing more piling on. I'd say it'll be the former, not the latter.

I have to laugh, this thread is about how little palin knows about the actual market and the financial crisis and the majority of the thread is rightie controlled other garbage.

It looks to me like this kind of diversion focus is going to certainly make the democrats another cough up the big one in the end.

Oorah-
re: It's just that the left has thrown the kitchen sink at her with it being mostly garbage. Any substantive criticism will be lost, for the most part, on the general populace because you've cried wolf so often.

Obama is a Muslim.

Obama is not a citizen of the US.

Obama has said "if it comes down to it, he will side with Islam"

Obama is a marxist.

Obama will be sworn in on the Koran.

etc., etc.

I will give you this, Oorah - The Right has done a much better job of painting a few yahoos as representative of "the Left" than we could ever dream of doing.But this does not explain your (You, Oohrah) reluctance to either be aware of, or even begin to refute certain items about Palin. Maybe after you listen to Hannity's spin you'll have some talking points...

Oohrah-
Why do you suppose Gibson was given both the most recent and lengthy interview with McCain and now Palin?

Food for thought.

OOPS.......Yesterday he was a muslim again until corrected by George

BET-
It was the mainstream media (with support from the lefty blogs) that did the trashing of Palin. To my knowledge the mainstram media hasn't done that with Obama.

To your point I don't recall Rush calling him a Muslim, non-citizen. I think he's called him a socialist, not unlike so many others with the party.

All that garbage about the Koran, etc, was put forth by bloggers & thru endless emails. It was not part of the media's effort to smear Obama.

"Frivolous piling on...."

Some of it has been frivolous. But some points raised would have been enough to have torpedoed Palin within the first twenty-four hours if there were any honest desire to attend to them.

This country is polarized. Half are Blue; half are Red. The Reds have apparently made Palin their girl.

So she's a liar, but she's their liar. I don't think you get them off that dime. It took them at least six years to see through W.

I'd expect the same sort of glacially slow learning curve here.

Following up on a point made above, I think one reason it took the Reds six years to identify Bush as the weenie he is was that it was the Blues pointing that out. Loyalty to tribe prevented them for seeing what was in front of them; or from smelling it.

Palin is most certainly an unabashed and poorly skilled liar.

That, to me, is far more important than how she looks, how many kids she has, or anything else.

She is full of shit.

So the Reds won't accept a description of reality from the Blues because the Blues are the ones offering it.

So why can't the Reds do it for themselves? Damned if I know; I've spent much time the last eight years considering that.

I do know that the Reds absolutely most despised those few other Reds that stood with the Blues warning them what shit-stink they were getting into.

Ohra,

You're nothing but full of shit and the fact we can sit here and read on a continued basis the back and forth crap you post and when certain situation present it self you try and back track and say I don't recall ...... saying that.

Nothing about you has a ounce of validity and honesty worthy of listening.

"But this does not explain your (You, Oohrah) reluctance to either be aware of, or even begin to refute certain items about Palin. Maybe after you listen to Hannity's spin you'll have some talking points... " - BET

Some observations.

1. Like you, I have other interests outside politics. I try to stay informed, yet we all know there are "two sides to a story." To date, all I've heard or read is your side. Frankly, whether she did or didn't has no impact on whether I'd be supportive of McCain and her.

2. Regarding "talking points" I realize that was a low blow. You don't need to do that with me - you know me by now. No need to insult. Here's the thing: you, me and everyone gets "talking points" based on any particular source we view/hear. If she claims she didn't do it, then I'd want to hear her explanation as to what really happened and not be told what the deal was by her political enemies.

3. To reiterate from earlier today, I do want Palin to do interviews and to continue to address voters at campaign stops. She seems to perform quite well in front of friendly crowds. I'd like to see her step in front of a potentially hostile interviewer and show some balls - like Bush the father did with Dan Rather many years ago.

4. The left has stepped in their own doo doo. For the first time I honestly think McCain can beat Obama. Much can change, but the trends appear favorable for Reps.... Palin is a huge plus, Iraq surge has gone well, gas prices are down, Obama is playing defense, etc. Time will tell.

Alexandrite-
She's a very skilled liar. She told a lie, got busted on it ("bridge to nowhere"), and then told it again before a larger audience. Watch out for "sarah barracuda".

The right introduces a veritable unknown to the Presidential race and gets bent when people gossip, research, learn and dig into her and her family connections? Especially when some of those family connections illustrate an abuse of power?

Look, here's the problem. Your sweet Sarah is getting a reputation. The country's becoming aware that for 10 days, and in ads, she's been sticking to at least one lie about the bridge to nowhere. A significant lie when she's now being cast as one of the "Original Mavericks."

She's being defined, and she better do something significant in the interview with Gibson or the GOP won't be able to redefine her. She'll be stiuck with her record.

"Then told it again before a larger audience...."

In point of fact, I learn sitting here that there is a nation-wide ad that has Palin bragging about doing something she knows she didn't.

The fact that these righties here whine and cry about palin is makes me laugh.

They continue to push and make up out right lies and push scare tactic beliefs they know is untrue about obama but whine about finding about palin and scetchy character values of what she preaches.

The right needs to rethink here because they are the ones who make up shit.

MONEY-
I'm honest. Maybe you're not accustomed to that from a conservative, but I am. I honestly don't recall specific words Rush has used to describe Obama. I only catch limited snippets and so am not in position to recount his every word.

Despite yours and others personal shots at conservatives and me, at times, there's no need to go there. I don't reciprocate. No need to.

State your case - keep the name calling out of it if you're speaking with me. You're better than that.

Betelg- She's shameless as a liar, but not skilled.

Bill Clinton was a skilled liar. He could spin anything. Palin is transparent, and her good looks are the only thing saving her from right wing scrutiny.

She'll be stiuck with her record.

#69 | Posted by YAV

Yeah, I just wish she wasn't the most viewed of any candidate at the conventions, and that she wouldn't have caused our ticket the decline in the polls. LOL, Mr. Reality.

This just slays me: Barrack Obama lying about that same damned bridge would mean the end of his candidacy.

Oohrah-
You don't consider FoxNews "mainstream", I suppose. My elderly parents would be surprised to hear that, and Fox pushed the "madrassa" bs pretty hard.

re: "2. Regarding "talking points" I realize that was a low blow."

It was actually aimed at your head. If you are waiting for "spin" from your camp instead of finding and evaluating the facts for yourself...because there are still facts, whether it's an election year or not.

Barrack Obama lying about that same damned bridge would mean the end of his candidacy.

#75 | Posted by Zed

Yeah, he couldn't brush it off as "flip".

MONEY-
Dr Hill - a huge Obama backer - was on O'Reilly a moment ago saying the same thing I've been saying. All the garbage personal attacks have hurt "the cause." Things like berating her for being able to read a scripted speech, for example. (Most all speeches are written by others... and, in her case, the teleprompter stopped working effectively, so she did it from notes and memory)

Keep piling on Palin. The more vicious the better. It'll only obscure credible complaints.

Alexandrite-
The most skilled liars repeat lies until they are true. The Right seems to love that, and many others fall for it as well.

Ohrah,

The fact that you think from your postings on this thread would suggest to any reader that you are honest gives great leaps as to your character and what YOU believe honest means.

The fact that you KNOW the falsehoods of palin, yet push it as one sided, suggests again as to your character value of what being honest really actually means.

"The more vicious the better...."

The woman lies. That's just a descriptor. Are you saying that shouldn't be brought up? Because pointing out the liar is a liar creates sympathy for the malefactor?

Zed-
She may have been taught how to lie by her mother or something, and that would be attacking her family.

Ok--this is interesting--Gal quotes from the article-

"Meanwhile, as Baker noted, as of July the two lenders were being offered low market interest rates by the fed again, theoretically, at the taxpayer's expense. But, he added, "I kind of doubt she had any sense of that."

If Baker has a "sense" of it--why can't anyone else?

If some business goes BK--A Receiver is appointed by the courts. They fire the top, they then start selling off the assets.

Apparently only 9% of the book of business is bad and 91% is performing just fine.

This is BS for the taxpayer!

And yeah--it is too expensive for the taxpayer!

The most skilled liars repeat lies until they are true.
Posted by BetelG

Sucks that you yahoo's and the KOS crowd couldn't make that work when you claimed Trig was Bristol's son. Next time tackle something you can sell to the American public, and quit being such babies when you fuck up.

OORAH mentioned "credible complaints" about Palin. It is a matter of interest to me which of the fifteen or twenty now on the table he views as credible.

Moneywar-
Oohrah is many times one of the few on this blog who actually attempt to get the actual truth, outside of partisanship. Why he is cynically taking the tone of punditocrats of what spin will work best regardless of the facts on this particular thread is why he ticked me off a bit.

Okay, can someone here help me out with Palin's stand on windfall profits tax for oil companies? Am I right in thinking she was for them in Alaska when she was governor but is against them now that she is running for VP?

Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration.

Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry.

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

. . .

Obama supports a federal windfall-profits tax, with the proceeds used to provide rebates of $500 or $1,000 to taxpayers. "Increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place," Obama said last Monday in Michigan. "But it's not the solution" to America's energy problems, he added.

McCain has blasted the idea, saying it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need."

In Alaska, the willingness of Republicans to tax the oil industry reflects unusual political developments.

. . .

In the fall primary of 2006, Palin upset Republican incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski, whom she criticized for giving too much of a break to the oil industry.

Then last year, Palin introduced a graduated tax pegged to increased oil prices. The state Legislature modified her proposal to increase the state's take even further.

The bill's proponents a coalition of Democrats and maverick Republicans argued that oil production was declining in Alaska, and that the lower tax rate under previous governors had done little to spur additional investment in the state's oil industry.

"Quit being such babies when you fuck up...."

WISGOOD's philosophy is that a swing and a miss means no more swinging is allowed.

And another thing--did any one watch Matthews today and the guy explaining the Bridge to no where dust up?

He was slammed--Sarah did want a "link" to Ketchekan (sp). But ---

Then Steven and Young got 400 million dollars for the bridge and she said no way.

So the bridge comments are right on.

Keep on swinging and missing..

I just have to laugh here, we know we have a huge financial problem.

The republican conservative continue to preach about free trade and free markets yet now that their beloved institutions are failing through poor governmental policy making by their own they want to give poverty aid.

Yet in that same breath the republican conservative will call the normal working poverty individual a lazy as free loader not worthy of aid.

Then when the republican conservatives choose an unknown hacking VP that has clearly mislead the people in her accolades and character they cry foul!

Well, guess what, either take off the kid gloves and do what you preach as far as free market and support such or your nothing but what we already know, Corporate whores with hypocritical honest values.

Sorry, here is the link to Palin's press release:

Wisgod-
re: Sucks that you yahoo's and the KOS crowd couldn't make that work when you claimed Trig was Bristol's son.

I never did. No one I personally know did. On the other side of the coin, I'm sure you've never suggested that Obama is a Muslim, or isn't a US citizen, or is a manchurian candidate, etc.

Right?

Oohrah is many times one of the few on this blog who actually attempt to get the actual truth, outside of partisanship. Why he is cynically taking the tone of punditocrats of what spin will work best regardless of the facts on this particular thread is why he ticked me off a bit.

Bet,

For the most part I agree and also his stance toward palin for what he clearly knows has pissed me off too.

It clearly makes me wonder here and around the country about our country value system.

MW,

It's not often that I am able to say this to you:

Well stated!

:-)

Then Steven and Young got 400 million dollars for the bridge and she said no way.

She CAMPAIGNED for Gov on her support for the earmark. It's in the public record.

Good lord. It's like I have to link to a site that "claims" the sky is blue, or what?

(Like I said, Alex - The best liars (like Palin) tell a lie until it is true)

MW - I was referring to your #90.

MURPHY---Me wee lass---How much of OUR money did Palin think was acceptable for HER constituency to get for that bridge she ACCEPTED then said she OPPOSSED?

You've just made an argument for the morality of rape provided it's only once or twice as distinct from ten times.

On second thought, I can't believe you've got your brain engaged in this at all.

never did. No one I personally know did. On the other side of the coin, I'm sure you've never suggested that Obama is a Muslim, or isn't a US citizen, or is a manchurian candidate, etc.

Right?

#92 | Posted by BetelG

Yeah right. Nobody here made a stink over it.

And Zed, by all means don't stop swinging. Afterall, it's working out so well.

JJ,

Nice to see you here actually willing to discuss palin without the party holdin stubborness.

We clearly know her willingness to distort now, it will get far far worse if she makes office.

Murphy, et al-
Here's the ultra-liberal Wall Street Journal on the bridge:

Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims
By ELIZABETH HOLMES and LAURA MECKLER
September 9, 2008

The Bridge to Nowhere argument isn't going much of anywhere.

Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.

The McCain campaign released a television advertisement1 Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."

Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.

But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

BetelG and MW,

I just read through Oohrah's posts on this thread. I don't come accross any comment that substantiates your characterizations.

" I never did. No one I personally know did. On the other side of the coin, I'm sure you've never suggested that Obama is a Muslim, or isn't a US citizen, or is a manchurian candidate, etc.

Nor did I. But Wisgod will be glad to assume responsibility for all the slurs and smears against Obama and his wife. Right?

But Wisgod will be glad to assume responsibility for all the slurs and smears against Obama and his wife. Right?

#102 | Posted by nullifidian

It was a "flip" on my part. Does that absolve me, Null?

Wisgod-
re: "Yeah right. Nobody here made a stink over it."

I didn't say that (but just out of curiousity, who here did?)

Oh, and you didn't answer my question.

Of course, we all know that if Obama had a pregnant 16 year old, the right and the media won't have mentioned it or would have been full of praise for the Obamas for encouraging their daughter to marry the father.

"Afterall, it's working out so well..."

You may have a point. If I'd kept silent in 2000 regarding what an absolute loser W. was, perhaps he would have lost that election.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question.

#104 | Posted by BetelG

And I won't. You're an idiot. Your act is old.

Jeff J-
I ceased to care about your opinion some time ago, while watching you come at me in ad hominem attacks after I've left the board, but thanks for your input.

She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal,

Which validates the 'thanks but no-thanks' claim in a rookie-Clintontian sense. That being said, her comment is misleading.

she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

This mitigates her earmark defiance at least to an extent. That said, can any of you cite an instance where a state governor refused a federal earmark altogether? My question is genuine - it may have happened in the past. That being said, I suspect it's EXTREMELY rare as governors are elected to look out for the best interests of the state they represent.

Null and Money,

Can you help me out with my questions (see above) on Palin and windfall proftis tax?

And I won't. You're an idiot. Your act is old.

#107 | Posted by wisgod at 2008-09-08 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not an act. I stated that I had never questioned Palin's motherhood or that of her daughter, which is true. And then I asked if you had spread reckless rumors about Obama, which you have, and you get all snippy.

I ceased to care about your opinion some time ago, while watching you come at me in ad hominem attacks after I've left the board

*sniff*

Snippy? I'm enjoying this as much as the Packers game right now. Keep swinging.

I'm confused. No doubt I'm missing something obvious. Can someone clarify this for me?

I have no idea, Gal. Sarah! will say whatever is expedient at the given moment, just like the "bridge to nowhere" lies.

And let's not forget how the rightwing blogosphere handled the rumor about Michelle's "I hate whitey" comment.

From Boyd's link--

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.

A year ago, the governor issued a press release2 that the money for the project was being "redirected."

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

There isn't a governor in the history of governors to give money back to the gov't.

I don't think you can!

Has anyone tried to give the gov't back money they sent out in error? Or the wrong amount on SS check?

Anything like that??

And Matthews had the explanation on his show. She did want a Link to Ketchikan--but not 400 million dollars!

She is stating the truth--she said No Thanks!

Wait until folks start looking into Obama's earmarks--which has been linked by folks here.

He has earmarked 140 million--what's funny is that the guy was only in the Seante for 143 days before he ran for POTUS.

JJ,

I understand what you are saying with Ohrah and must agree partially here.

After being a frequent contributor here on the DR for many years and have watched others post and posts on different threads it is apparent and clear where they are making stands.

Not often is my intuition incorrect, and find ohrahs stand after knowing what information is out there some what frustrating and am letting him know.

Garbage in garbage out, and just reading about palin and using this thread article as an example shows us about how much knowledge she has to US financial situations.

Big news from #2 today while campaigning in Green Bay, Wisconsin...Biden says McCain and Palin mirror Bush

He also said he was a Packer fan all his life which is a lie on par with the 22 other alledged lies from Palin. The slate is now clean.

Jeff J-
I like the "little kid in a candy store" defence.

You go. After all, it's not like Palin and McCain are propping her up as a woman who stood up to congress and rejected the bridge funds before the "bridge to nowhere" became the MAIN example of wasteful pork (and she still kept the money!).

Governors are elected to look after the best financial interests of the states they represent.

Indeed, but Palin wants to be the heroine without having done anything the least bit heroic. It wouldn't kill some of you to concede that much.

Zed-
It would kill WisGod.

I have no idea, Gal. Sarah! will say whatever is expedient at the given moment, just like the "bridge to nowhere" lies.

Isn't she running on her record in Alaska of going against big oil by raising taxes? Why, then, is she criticizing Obama's plan to do the same? At least, that's the way I read her statement about his energy plan versus her campaign speeches about being a maverick and a reformer who stood up to big oil.

Zed-
It would kill WisGod.

#121 | Posted by BetelG

To do what? Acknowledge that she couldn't vote "Present" so as to protect her political carreer from scrutiny?

Zed-
See. It really would.

Fannie and Freddie are burdens on the taxpayer....

They pay no local or state taxes, and don't file with the SEC. They get tax subsidies amounting to about $10 billion a year.

They accept political appointees, the CEO of Fannie Mae is an appointee, Franklin Raines, who was paid more than $4 million and had almost $6 million in unexercised stock options in his first year at the helm.

Its known as a GSE, for good reason, and nobody (DorR) in congress wants to change that classification, for thier own selfish reasons.

You get someone from the outside like Palin to point out the ills of the Washington insider gravy train, and you knuckleheads claim "Gaffe".

So much for change...

See, you're an idiot. I asked you a question at 6:42. Well, what's your answer?

See you guys around. (Jeff, it's safe now to attack me in that catty and purely personal blog way that you like)

Indeed, but Palin wants to be the heroine without having done anything the least bit heroic. It wouldn't kill some of you to concede that much.

Maybe that's her pattern, Zed, the one Dems should emphasisize. So much for the notion that she will clean up Washington; she'll fatten the coffers of her supporters. McSame/McPalin

MW,

Nice to see you here actually willing to discuss palin without the party holdin stubborness.

We clearly know her willingness to distort now, it will get far far worse if she makes office.

You know me and my politics well enough to know that I favor McCain in this race. While, I recognize the brilliance of picking Palin in the short-term - coupled with the pathetic attacks against her by the established media which have pretty much had the opposite to the desired effect, I have serious concerns long-term. Look, thus far, I like what I see (in more ways than one). Nevertheless, the lack-of experience concern is very legitimate. My concern is that her inevitable campaign gaffes bely an utter ignorance as to how the world truly works. You know as well as anybody that idealism, while important, takes a back-seat to pragmatism that oft only comes with experience and seasoning.

I hope she 'gets it'. I really do. That said, I refuse to stump for her until she proves herself. She still has a lot to prove, thus my 'wait and see' attitude.

"So much for change...."

I imagine that's how Palin considered the twenty-seven million she elected to pocket from that bridge, "change".

Andrea,

Can you answer the question I asked in Post 87? Sorry I screwed up the link and the italics.

Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.

However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.

Goddamn it AA. Quit trying deflect.

You get someone from the outside like Palin to point out the ills of the Washington insider gravy train, and you knuckleheads claim "Gaffe".

This knucklehead wants to thank you for the clarification. What is McCain's position of Freddie and Fannie?

Next, you'll be talking about how a new Special Needs program was inacted in Alaska, and she didn't really screw the Special Needs families.

MW,

I caught you in a good mood and it saddens me to report that I have to move on for the night.

I would like to discuss Palin with you in the near future.

Until then....

"Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (to nowhere),"

It was part of God's plan. Until it wasn't.

--Sarah!

Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years,
Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden

"[Biden] is an avid supporter of pork barrel spending, supporting the Bridge to Nowhere in 2005 and winning the ignominious Porker of the Month award from Citizens Against Government Waste in January 2002. Biden has been reliably anti-trade and pro-government regulation."

John McCain: "one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending."

Next, you'll be talking about how a new Special Needs program was inacted in Alaska, and she didn't really screw the Special Needs families.

She didn't cut special needs funding, but I think she did cut funding for unwed mothers. Or has that claim now been debunked too?

Null, do we have anything left we can bash her for? Is her Pastor still near the bullseye? Heart's Barracuda song? What?

Oh yeah, she's not doing interviews while she spends time with her son before he leaves for his tour of Iraq. That should do.

I am a girly, so none of you can call me sexist. Having said that, OMFG she is a whiny, nasty, snarky, bitch. Anyone who doesn't get that is dumb to be honest. Hey her four closest friends were on GMA this morning (not sure where the fifth one was since they call themselves "the elite six") but only ONE of them said they would vote for her, one other said she would not say who she was voting for, the other two said they are "undecided" this is your BESTEST FRIEND IN THE ENTIRE WORLD and yet you are still "undecided" tells you a world of what women think about Sarah. Personally as I said above, she is a vindictive bitch, that has become obvious in her past and in her recent speeches. I do not want a woman with that kind of attitude with her finger on the button, period. "You did not compliment me on my shoes Putin, well hows about this?"

Seriously, I mean seriously how can anyone, any male or any female take this "token" female seriously, I am as all feminist as all feminist can be but his sack of shit is about as anti-feminist as you can get, the only difference between her and a muslim wife is that she is not walking three feet behind her husband and she is not wearing a burkah.

Footnote to my previous post:

Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.

Even the Coburn amendment to shift the funds to Katrina was BEFORE Sarah Palin was Governor.

I have no idea where Obama-Biden think they are going by continuing to raise this bridge and how she changed her mind when she became governor. All it is going to do is show how fiscally responsible she is in abandoning a project that was too costly.

She did not violate any campaign promise or commitment --which is what they seem to want to imply. She supported the idea as did most Alaskans. And so too did most Alaskans support her decision to NOT go ahead with it.

Litlebritdifrnt, I don't believe these were really her four best friends. If so, I would hate to hear what her enemies would say. Oh....wait a minute. I've heard mainly from her enemies for almost two weeks now.

Anamerican, do you want to debunk the latest "she is a whiny, nasty, snarky, bitch" claim by Litlebritdifrnt? This is going to take some top notch detective work.

I am a girly, so none of you can call me sexist. Having said that, OMFG she is a whiny, nasty, snarky, bitch. "

And what's worse, those are the good things!

And what's worse, those are the good things!

#146 | Posted by nullifidian

It is if your holding an empty sack.

Gal,

I am doing a little looking as to your question, will post what I find for you.

JJ,

Look forward in discussing and I am not set as to whom I am going to vote for yet. I am hearing adds about T. Pickens and it appears he is going to run as an independent, that may be my out.

I am not happy with the democrat party as of late, they have shown laziness and abdication towards policy making in helping the people.

I find it interesting that so many are excited about palin when she has shown so much purposeful distortion and misleading of what she has actually done that yes, it is clintonistic in its nature for sure. The only difference, she's republican. yahoo for them.

"It is if your holding an empty sack."

You mean an empty dress, like the Mooseville Messiah?

Its simple, wisgod. She's everything women have been fighting to be for years - a woman who can handle a career (in her case, politics) and raise a family with all its challenges and being successful at it. Even stay at home moms have chldren who don't always heed the warnings of their mother.

But the main reason - she doesn't have the big D beside her name.

Gal,

Part of my problem is what you are calling windfall taxes. The taxes are not unexpected gains, the taxes were gained with purposeful intent and expected from the politicians.

You mean an empty dress, like the Mooseville Messiah?

#149 | Posted by nullifidian

If an empty dress cancels out an empty suit, we've got us a win.

Gal,

I am doing a little looking as to your question, will post what I find for you.

Thanks, Money. I appreciate that. I am sincere about both my confusion and my questions. I am knucklehead on many economic issues. :-(

Gal,

Lets not confuse the issue about special needs and palin cutting their funding.

Palin did cut funding, she just allocated money to an area she liked, kind of like a no bid contract.

Lets not confuse the issue about special needs and palin cutting their funding.

Posted by moneywar

There's nothing confusing about it. She budgeted more money for the years she was Govenor. Try google if you don't want to admit it. You can afford 30 seconds.

Part of my problem is what you are calling windfall taxes. The taxes are not unexpected gains, the taxes were gained with purposeful intent and expected from the politicians.

Okay, sounds like I was trying to compare apples and oranges? Palin is for raising tax rates on oil companies but not for a windfall profits tax on them?

Lets not confuse the issue about special needs and palin cutting their funding.

Palin did cut funding, she just allocated money to an area she liked, kind of like a no bid contract.

Oh.

Money,

Do you have a link on the special needs fundng switcharoo?

In FY 07, before Palin worked on the budget, the state of Alaska had four distinct programs funded under its special education management budget: something called SESA, a psychiatric program, a school for the deaf, and the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy. In FY 08, the first Palin year, the first three programs - SESA, the psychiatric program, and the school for the deaf - were still in the special education management budget and their funding was approximately the same as it was in FY 07. But the Alaska Challenge Youth Program isnt listed and its omission accounts for what appears to be a huge drop in funding for special education services.

If you google the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy, you will find that in FY 08 the academy was moved out of special education management and became its own program. And its funding was increased by about $2.8 million (to $8,234,000 in FY 08from $5,449,300 in FY07). Heres a link to the programs FY 08 budget.

Gal, do a google on Alaska Challenge Youth Academy.

Nice AnAmerican.

Gal,

Palin is for raising tax rates on oil companies but not for a windfall profits tax on them?

Yes, so now you got to the meat of the matter.

pallin wants a piece of the energy money without taking the profits from the oil companies.

Now, who's money is she trying to take? Ours.

It is a convoluted way of saying she is going to get the oil companies but in reality taking it from the people.

Sorry, linky didn't work. I will try again if anyone is interested.

$War, can you check the last arguement regarding Special Needs funding? I notice Independant Null didn't want to chime in and AmericanUnity doesn't understand it, And I'm hoping that you are man enough to admit the charge of cutting funding was baloney and now off the table.

"$War, can you check the last arguement regarding Special Needs funding? I notice Independant Null didn't want to chime in"

I'm not familiar with the issue, Wis. Can't be an expert on everything. :)

wis,

Nope, sorry.

you pull out a small segment of the entire issue an expect it to show she is grand. That is not the case and in a few short weeks when the actual people of that state begin to speak up about funding, you will look silly.

I'm not familiar with the issue, Wis. Can't be an expert on everything. :)

#165 | Posted by nullifidian

I don't blame you Null. I'm sure you are digging into the 21 other Palin lies. In all honesty, this was another KOS talking point that is causing Barry heartburn.

Wisgod, I found this information on Michelle Malkin's website.

Palin requested 197 Million in earmarks for Alaska this year. This is lower than last year, however it is still higher than any other State.

- CNN (they're running a "fact check" on the candidates right now)

$war, how surprising that you couldn't do any research but can draw the conclusion that she cut the budget. You must be a Sheep who is used to looking at the north end of southbound leaders in your party.

She didn't cut special needs funding, but I think she did cut funding for unwed mothers. Or has that claim now been debunked too?

#139 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2008-09-08 09:21 PM

The unwed mothers was the program was quintupled--she line itemed it to be quadruple.

So yes--she cut funds from the program.

She does things differently--she raised sales tax in Wasilla and raised 2 million in revenues.

She also waived the state's gas tax on a gallon of gas--for a year. it was 8 cents a gallon--but folks were happy to have something of a savings.

AA is completely correct on this--I don't know why Obama and Biden want to bash her on this bridge to nowhere--They voted for the pork!

And folks are wondering why a Governor of any State would ask the Feds for pork?

It's because they can!

If the feds were doing their jobs like NOT porking up the bills--we would have a budget --within means--less deficit and debt --less inflation and moneky business by the Federal Reserve.

I heard that pork was maybe 30 bills during Reagan's terms.

Now it is 60,000 every year--for years!

It has to stop.

I'm sure you are digging into the 21 other Palin lies.

Nice to see you can at least admit about her lies.

They voted for the pork!

It passed 93 for, 1 against. It wasn't a bill on just the bridge.

The Colburn amendment was voted down by a Republican controlled Congress, a Republican committee - 82 to 15.

McCain wasn't present for either vote. In fact, for just the 110th Congress, McCain has missed 408 votes.

When you look at the voting records, the legislative record for both Obama and McCain, what do you get with McCain?

Maybe a 10% change with 1/3 the effort.

Woo woo.

Yav, that doesn't dispute the fact that Obama and Biden both voted against the Colburn amendment - to switch the funding from the famed "Bridge to Nowhere" to Katrina relief.

Read about Obama's earmarks:

Wasn't McCain running for POTUS?

The record of McCain is anti-pork and always has been.

Sarah is a reformer who went against her own party members to clean out the violators and corruptness.

The Repubs (and Dems) have got to stop the BS.

Repubs lost in 2006 because of the spending (amoung other issues). McCain will change that--Obama won't.

In fact it will be worse--higher taxes and more spending--big spending from Obama.

I want to know who's gong to step up to the plate and tell the poor Katrina survivors that Obama screwed them out of the money?

I've found this other little tidbit:

I want to know who's gong to step up to the plate and tell the poor Katrina survivors that Obama screwed them out of the money?

And this clearly shows that almost anything you post and suggest is just a lying slant.

In case you didn't look or even read, but this thread is about palin and the financial crisis.

And back to the charges against Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere. Read these article exerpts from 2007:

New York Times reported in September of 2007:

Gov. Sarah Palin ordered state transportation officials to abandon the ''bridge to nowhere'' project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending. The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island. ''Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport,'' Ms. Palin, a Republican, said in a news release, ''but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.'' She directed the State Transportation Department to find the most ''fiscally responsible'' alternative for access to the airport.

Plus, from the September 27, 2007 USA Today, " Alaska's governor has officially dropped plans for one of two spans critics called 'bridges to nowhere.' Gov. Sarah Palin said this month she was scrapping the proposed $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to its airport on an nearby island where 50 people live."

AA--Unbelievable crapola there!

Obama should just shut up about trying to attack McCain and Sarah and talk about his issues.

All of this s going to come out between now and likely during the debates.

How can Obama be bashing McCain about his advisors when Obama is picking from the same trees?

ANd the other link with Obama's 740 million earmarks. He dared Hillary to show her list.

He acts proud that he was trying to get his wife's employer 1 million dollars--the hospital. It was eventually turned down.

And Biden is no different--he is worse!

Washington needs to be reformed--they need someone who is by history an anti-pork person.

That is McCain.

I want to know who's gong to step up to the plate and tell the poor Katrina survivors that Obama screwed them out of the money?

You mean Obama and the Republican controlled Senate? Too bad McCain didn't vote on it. Then again, when you're never there to vote on anything it's kind of hard to have a record. Even one as a "maverick."

There was a reason why 82 Senators voted against Colburn's amendment.

Damn you people are simple minded.

You're going to make me pull out my can of whoop-ass and start listing all the bills McCain DID manage to make it back to vote against - all of it money for Katrina victims.

So now you want to talk about the Katrina victims and who did more for them? You sure you want to go there?

Murphy, the left is in desperation mode right now.

You know I don't understand why someone isn't doing the perp walk on the FNMA FDMC manure.

And why do we have to bail them out?

Why isn't this in BK court and the judge selling off the business portfolios?

There will be no changes to ensure this doesn't happen again.

And folks will do it all again!

It's criminal.

AA--they are desparate--and they don't even keep up with their own talking points to attack the other side.

They are attacking the Repubs and they are part of the same problems they are attacking them on.

It's quite remarkable.

If anyone cares--they should catch the Chris Matthews show today--completely discredited the Sarah attacks on the bridge to nowhere.

Thursday, February 14, 2008
Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain: Earmarks
There is an interesting story today from the Washington Post that can be found on the CBS News web site. It concerns earmarks -- the way some of our elected officials sneak money to their home states. I say "sneak" because earmarks have not been very transparent in the past. Thankfully there is some movement to do something about this. The article though mentions the three front-running candidates and the earmarks they were able to get. Here are the highlights:

Hillary Clinton: "... $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group." [The group is Taxpayers for Common Sense.]

Barack Obama: "... $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed."

John McCain: "one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending."

The bottom line, Yav, is that McCain REJECTS EARMARKS ENTIRELY. And Palin has been working since being governor to wean her state from dependency on earmarks.

Yav, my point was that Obama is out preaching about how the government didn't do enough in Katrina relief and he didn't even step up when he had the opportunity to get more relief for them.

You know I don't understand why someone isn't doing the perp walk on the FNMA FDMC manure.

And why do we have to bail them out?

Why isn't this in BK court and the judge selling off the business portfolios?

#185 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-09-08 10:50 PM |

Murphy, I feel sorry for the people who were encouraged to go for a mortgage they really couldn't afford. On the other hand, I have always tried to make sure I didn't buy more house than I could afford. It has been tough sometimes over the years. My husband lost his job about 31 years ago and we had a new mortgage. We almost sold the house. The lender worked with us to make interest only payments during that time and we were able to keep it. Its amazing how times have changed.

And this clearly shows that almost anything you post and suggest is just a lying slant.

In case you didn't look or even read, but this thread is about palin and the financial crisis.

#179 | Posted by moneywar

No, it's a thread about a gaffe. But she didn't claim "flip", she wasn't corrected by the interviewer, so carry on. And the sad part is, she didn't make a gaffe. Partisan hypocrite.

Gal,

Actually I think palin understands the economic issue at hand but pushes the agenda like she doesn't so the money received from the outcome isn't lost.

Wis,

You are correct, it was purposefully done so it wasn't a gaffe.

I find it interesting that you and murph continue to post slapping each other on the back of slanted convoluted postings you both have made as if it contains some middle of the ground validity.

As far as hypocrit, I am afraid you have been long in looking in the mirror. Do you avoid mirrors after you logout?

It is interesting that so many don't actually understand how our government works.

Alaska certainly has representatives that work with the wishes of those they represent. It seems palin is taking credit for what those others have done.

It appears wis and murph doesn't understand this either.

As far as hypocrit, I am afraid you have been long in looking in the mirror. Do you avoid mirrors after you logout?

#192 | Posted by moneywar

That's rich considering you can't stop your partisan BS and verify that the Special Needs cut in funding was a lie, and you are a follower. If you count on getting the news of the day from the DR, then ask the members like AU, Commonsense and Alex how to vote.
P.S. Don't ask Null, I understand he's an Independant.

It appears wis and murph doesn't understand this either.

#193 | Posted by moneywar

And it appears I'm in good Company!

The Palin Family's Potential Big Oil Conflict of Interest

And maybe Gal could start doing some research, eh?

I get my news of the day by reading papers, across all bounds. I also am able to see through the slanted gaffe lines of political support from one side to the other, so needless to say, not much of your postings is ever worthy of credence.

Not sure if there is anyting here, but this is the kind of thing that needs to looked into. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) face charges in Wisconsin and Iowa for voter registration fraud; can they be linked to the Obama Campaign?

not much of your postings is ever worthy of credence.

#198 | Posted by moneywar

Of course not. The truth would make for a lousy day. G-Night little lamb.

Here's one explanation of the difference between Palin's oil tax in Alaska and the one Obama proposes on a federal level:

And maybe Gal could start doing some research, eh?

Well, I think I got the answer to the question I asked earlier this evening. Nite.

Gal,

It is a good article, but there is one thing left out of the whole idea.

The corporations got their profits, the people get a refund, but what is missing is what did the government get, and who paid for what the government received????

As opposed to Obama and Biden?

Money,

I'm still digesting the article, which I am not buying hook, line and sinker. Here's the sticking point:

A direct share in oil profits for every citizen is the ultimate incentive for more drilling. That's why in Alaska drilling for oil seems almost universally popular, while other states are drill-phobic.

It seems Palin's plan was a clever way of insuring that drilling in Alaska will occur because taxpayers will have an incentive for such drilling to occur. Monetarily, at least on the surface, it's a win-win for both the oil companies and taxpayers. In Alaska, for Alaskans, that might make sense, but the plan discourages concern about the environment and also discourages incentives to find other sources of energy. A national plan, I think, should go beyond these special interests of either oil companies or citizens in oil rich regions. Alaskans may not be dependent on foreign oil, but they sure are dependent on local oil. The plan is good in the short-term but is short-sighted in other ways. The claim that Palin stood up to big oil is a half-truth and misleading. Methinks Palin wanted to have her oil cake and eat it too.

Don't let hate eat you Gal.

you know that Palin, like every female (and male) went through that awkward period about their period phase....

One thing is for sure, there is always blood.....

May as well embrace it...

Blood is life...

Hebrews 9:22
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Hebrews 9:22
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Hebrews 9:22
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

submit got loopie

Rex
What happened to the Huskies and Seahawks?

2ndCrusade

So, who among us doesn't know blood?

What up Crusade? Long time no talk, mofo...

My teams blew it dude..how you doing?

2ndloser is still around? I thought he was living his remaining days in an old age home.

Doing good, been away from this place a while.

Same old loons pissing in their pants around here I see.

No just been working lots of hours the last two years.

Rex

Cardinals - Super Bowl Bound
Wildcats - Rose Bowl Bound

LOL

2ndloser is still around? I thought he was living his remaining days in an old age home.

#223 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-09-09 01:53 AM | Reply | Flag

I feel like I'm living out my remaining days in an office.

Maybe I should switch parties and get in line for those handouts.

Rex
Washington got SCREWED on that excessive celebration call.

2ndloser is still around? I thought he was living his remaining days in an old age home.

#223 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-09-09 01:53 AM

nah. more like a shack in the woods.

hey rexy and caped crusader? i wanna join pwz. how do i go about doing that?

Washington needs to be reformed--they need someone who is by history an anti-pork person.

That is McCain.

#181 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-09-08 10:38 PM

you're either stupid or stoned.

i'll go with stupid.

Damn striaght they did Crusade.....good to see you...

Looks like AU got Jennings'ed this year......

I remember my lib prop telling me it's not fact unless you read it in the New York Times.

mmmm, there seems to be a lot of fact from the left trying to make Palin look bad. You must be getting your facts from the New York Times.

The problem with Fannie and Fredde was congress. They are the ones who push this crap about people and buying homes.

Watching Obama on Fox, it seems as if the he has a real problem talking face to face without a scrip.

"Watching Obama on Fox, it seems as if the he has a real problem talking face to face without a scrip."

I can see where watching practically anything on Fox would be a pain.

Pity those of us who watch McCain in any venue, a panderer who has a real problem talking with or without a script.

Don't worry - Palin may not have a wonderful grasp of economics, but her foreign policy experience is top-notch, given Alaska's close proximity to Russia!

"Palin Blunders" PICK, PICK, PICK, PICK. That's about all you libs can come up with. I notice you libs ignored the Biden blunder which was a LIE! "I never heard that we were going to bring criminal charges against the Bush Administration". Yes, at least Palin isn't a liar.

DOC SARVIS: Please call FLOP EARS campaign headquarters and get your new talking points. The old ones are out dated.

I notice you libs ignored the Biden blunder which was a LIE! "I never heard that we were going to bring criminal charges against the Bush Administration"

That story was linked here. Made the front page. Hope it happens.

Watch out Doc! Oozies' on your case now. And he DID graduate near the top of his class, doncha know.

Stein is lying and he knows it. There is no gaffe here. We have two programs that became too big and are now costing taxpayers plenty for a bailout. Where is she wrong?

What a waste of time this thread is.

I heard her say it Saturday night in Abq and wondered about it. But the federal government takeover basically makes it true, no?

She had her hair down and looked good.

You guys better keep listening for gaffes, you're gonna need them.

Begging your pardon, but taxpayers are on the hook for every single one of FNM and FRE bonds, to the tune of over $5,000,000,000,000. Palin is right. Why the American taxpayer EVER should have served as a backstop to mortgage debts of other Americans is stupid.

If one of Governor Palin's charges in Wasilla, AK wants to buy a home, that's between his bank and him. Shouldn't involve me. But thanks to Fannie and Freddie, I am involved. All of us are. Ditto for borrowers in Chicago or LA or Tampa.

Keep trying.

Why not post every Huffington article as its own running thread? While you are at it go with Media Matters and any other group that do nothing but sift through transcripts waiting for gaffs. As usual the left see this election slipping away and are resorting to the same failed tactics.

Did Fannie and Freddie get to big? Are homeowners not taxpayers? Insuring risky loans which have gone into default and devestated neighborhoods hasn't cost taxpayers? Lending institutions who sold loans to Fannie and Freddie and have gone under haven't cost taxpayers? Sure focus on the one sentence and ignore the reality of her statement.

She's not wrong.

When will RCade change the headline? Based on my link, it's clearly not a "blunder."

Did Stein or Huffington retract their gaff about Palin cutting funding for special needs children? Did they retract their gaff about McCain vetting old newspaper articles in Alaska? Huffington is the gift that keeps on giving republicans. Know what I mean MSNBC, CNN?

"Next, you'll be talking about how a new Special Needs program was inacted in Alaska, and she didn't really screw the Special Needs families."

#135 | Posted by wisgod

What are you referring to?

Oh, did you hear Obama vowing to take the state of "New Pennsylvania? It is one of those new states he keeps talking about.

Sure. See how well the clinging to guns and religion worked out? Of course we are to ignore that and accept his re-defined version.

Is that one of the 57 States?

I hear Obama is a Muslim extremist!

FACT!

Is that one of the 57 States?

I hear Obama is a Muslim extremist!

FACT!

"Next, you'll be talking about how a new Special Needs program was inacted in Alaska, and she didn't really screw the Special Needs families."

#135 | Posted by wisgod

What are you referring to?

I think she is being sarcastic and projecting the next line from an Obama lemming.

FACT!

#251 | Posted by James_Dean

You must really have a pea-sized brain. There hasn't been one coherent post out of your teeny-weeny brain. You are on the same level as FWThom.

FACT

"You must really have a pea-sized brain."

Why do you hate women? Why do you hate America?

Are you evil?

FACT!

These companies were created by the government, run by the government, then overseen by the government, and now bailed out by the government. I am still looking for the gaff.

#248 | Posted by KBM

Of course, that's why their stocks fell 95%. BTW, I believe they are selling stock in the state department and commerce department. You may want to get in on that opportunity.

Why do you hate women? Why do you hate America?

Are you evil?

FACT!

#254 | Posted by James_Dean

Your retort shows great understanding and only emphasizes my earlier post. You are a moron.

.....thats not a BLUNDER.......

......its a display of IGNORANCE.........

.....thats not a BLUNDER.......

......its a display of IGNORANCE.........

In what way? The assumption from a proven liar? Or the reality of her statement?

It's so much fun to see the Dems running scared. They have the most voters, the most money and are still behind with independents in the most recent polls by FIFTEEN POINTS.

You guys have been punked again. Amazing!

Sounds like Palin knows more about Fannie and Freddie than the economics editor at Huffington Post.

"Sounds like Palin knows more about Fannie and Freddie than the economics editor at Huffington Post."

#260 | Posted by rightisright

Hilarity.

I love it that in a thread designed to prove Palin's lack of economic understanding, it only proves that she apparently knew more than Gal_Tuesday, the author of the article, Danni, and other such dimwits. These cartoon characters may just catapult McCain / Palin to victory; the complete stupidity in their assaults may be their downfall.

"Gov. Sarah Palin said during a Colorado Springs campaign stop that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers," a remark that suggests she didn't know that the companies are not taxpayer funded."

Not taxpayer funded? LOL...Well, they will be now...Lenders make loans known as "conforming" loans, package them, then sell them to investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This frees up more money for lenders to make more loans. BUT...the investors are willing to buy these loans because they are government (read TAXPAYER) guaranteed. Here's a pretty good analysis of the situation today.

"I think she is being sarcastic and projecting the next line from an Obama lemming."

#252 | Posted by crispee_oc

No seriously, I didn't catch the "special needs" thing.

I'd love to see more examples of Obama supporters taking the low road and telling lies about Sarah, so if you could fill me in, that'd be great.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didnt cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

I wonder if RCade still thinks this is a "blunder," or if his site gradually becomes more biased during election time.

I wonder if RCade still thinks this is a "blunder," or if his site gradually becomes more biased during election time.

You don't mean all the 95% of Huffington articles becoming threads do you?

Obam said McCain, far from being a maverick whos "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

BTW the house/senate has a 9% approval rating.

"I wonder if RCade still thinks this is a "blunder,""

The blunder is quite clear: Palin didn't understand a "bailout" IS payment by the taxpayers. "...gotten...too expensive to the taxpayers"?!? She obviously doesn't know the costs have just begun; it's going to be A LOT more "expensive to the taxpayers".

Palin didn't understand the underlying structure. That's a blunder.

"...gotten...too expensive to the taxpayers

So when Cities have to pay money for the fall out of foreclosures and what they do to their neighborhoods, it doesn't come out of taxpayers pockets?

"So when Cities have to pay money for the fall out of foreclosures and what they do to their neighborhoods, it doesn't come out of taxpayers pockets?"

Yes, it does. But Palin's comment suggests she believes the taxpayers just got rid of a burdensome expense. The truth is exactly the opposite. What a colossal blunder.

Yes, it does. But Palin's comment suggests she believes the taxpayers just got rid of a burdensome expense. The truth is exactly the opposite. What a colossal blunder.

No you assume that was her belief. Had she used Americans instead of taxpayers would it still be a blunder?

"But Palin's comment suggests she believes the taxpayers just got rid of a burdensome expense."

Show where her comments suggested that. The supposed "gaffe" in the article is that she didn't know that the organizations aren't backed by taxpayer dollars, which I have proven to be a misstatement. If the Danforth method of construing statements sees another "gaffe" that nobody else does, let's just say that doesn't surprise me.

"Show where her comments suggested that."

Easy: "too expensive for the taxpayers".

Who, exactly, does she believe will be taking up the slack? Gotten too expensive? What a joke: the taxpayer "expenses" are just beginning.

Easy: "too expensive for the taxpayers".
Who, exactly, does she believe will be taking up the slack? Gotten too expensive? What a joke: the taxpayer "expenses" are just beginning.

I think Palin agrees with you. Her full comment was:
"The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

She wrote in the WSJ today that:

"The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is another outrageous, but sadly necessary, step for these two institutions. Given the long-term mismanagement and flawed structure of these two companies, this was the only short-term alternative for ensuring that hard-working Americans have access to affordable mortgages during this difficult economic period.
We are strong advocates for the permanent reform of Fannie and Freddie. For years, Congress failed to act and it is deeply troubling that what we are now seeing is an exercise in crisis management rather than sound planning, and at great cost to taxpayers."

Given these statements I don't think your characterization of her opinion is accurate.

"The supposed "gaffe" in the article is that she didn't know that the organizations aren't backed by taxpayer dollars, "

Big deal. Her statement shows she doesn't understand the basic structure. Why else would she suggest it had become "too expensive for the taxpayers"?

Just to see if you know how it works, does her statement lead you to believe she understands how it works, or doesn't understand how it works?

Danforth must be a master contortionist with all that semantic twisting he's doing.

BTW the house/senate has a 9% approval rating.

#267 | Posted by libslayer at 2008-09-09 12:14 PM | Reply

I'm sure the rating will go way up once the republicans have been kicked out. You didn't think the low ratings were because of democrats did you? Are you THAT stupid? You already sound pretty stupid as a McCain supporter--but are you THAT stupid?

"She wrote in the WSJ today..."

That's called damage control. She may have been schooled over the last few days, and she may have signed her name to whatever was written for the WSJ, but her original statement shows a woeful misunderstanding of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, and where the taxpayers' liabilities lie. Regardless if the authors picked up on that, it's a huge blunder.

"For years, Congress failed to act "

On the contrary...the Republican congress put these laws into place. Phil Graham was one of the architects.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didnt cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

#264 | Posted by libslayer at 2008-09-09 12:00 PM | Reply

I heard she raised it ten thousand percent and can walk on water. But I don't have a link--How about YOU?

Link?

Why else would she suggest it had become "too expensive for the taxpayers"?

That statement is not incorrect. Neither does it suggest that she doesn't realize that the bailout will cost more, as her own statement showed.

Just to see if you know how it works

Spare me the bullshit today.

LoD, feel free to answer the question: Does her statement it had gotten "too expensive for the taxpayers" show an understanding, or a misunderstanding?

"Had she used Americans instead of taxpayers would it still be a blunder?"

Yes. She was suggesting Americans/taxpayers had relieved themselves of a burden they couldn't afford. Instead, we have taken on a burden we can't afford. 180 degree difference.

"as her own statement showed."

That was her updated statement, not her original one. Try again.

"Spare me the bullshit today."

Translation: I know how it works, but if I admit that, I'll also have to admit Palin made a blunder.

And like I said, Danforth, my posts in this thread only rejected the notion that Huffington Post and their economists had picked up on a huge gaffe, that being her statement that Freddie and Fannie were not taxpayer-backed. They have it all wrong, and Palin was right to say that they have cost taxpayers too much money.

Whether you want to sit around and twist her words into something she might have "suggested" is up to you. The notion that anyone would think that a bailout doesn't cost taxpayers money is just stupid. You can play with that one all by yourself.

So they are creating gaffes that don't exist --to pretend there was a gaffe??

From the article--

Meanwhile, as Baker noted, as of July the two lenders were being offered low market interest rates by the fed again, theoretically, at the taxpayer's expense. But, he added, "I kind of doubt she had any sense of that."

So Baker can figure it out and says she's right--basically--BUT SHE could not really really really KNOW that--

must be that she is a woman..

Your "translation" is equally stupid. It must be sad not to know how stupid you look from a third person point of view when you try to change the meaning of other peoples' words.

My Muslim faith - oh, wrong blunder, er fraudian slip.

Yep a deflection - you guys got me.

Too many of our translators are in Iraq instead of Afghanistan - what, they don't speak the same language?

Nothing happening here - moveon.org.

"LoD, feel free to answer the question: Does her statement it had gotten "too expensive for the taxpayers" show an understanding, or a misunderstanding?"
--DANFORTH

It shows an understanding that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers," which is what she said.

"She was suggesting Americans/taxpayers had relieved themselves of a burden they couldn't afford. Instead, we have taken on a burden we can't afford. 180 degree difference."
--DANFORTH

She didn't say taxpayers had relieved themselves of anything.

Keep contorting.

"Palin was right to say that they have cost taxpayers too much money."

Really? How much have Fannie and Freddie cost the taxpayers so far? The "subsidies" are a drop in the bucket compared to the upcoming bailout. And suggesting on Friday it had cost too much, and on Tuesday amending to say it'll still cost more, a lot more, is a product of instant education, not prior knowledge.

wow .....look at the statement and look at who makes the conclusion.
the fuckin huffington post

you HAVE to be kidding around with this one.......

"It shows an understanding that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers," which is what she said. "

And just big enough and just expensive enough for whom?

and I am sure that there are comments here already about all of the people who they have thrown millions of dollars too
I saw this on CNN soit HAS TO BE TRUE

dodds is NUMBER ONE.........AGAIN
and the top 4 of 6 are DEMOCRATS INCLUDING the great messiah.......
so lets start there when we talk about this shit

"The notion that anyone would think that a bailout doesn't cost taxpayers money is just stupid. "

Yep. But that's what Sarah Palin suggested.

HEY GAL

earlier you posted crap from stienem and it DOeNST MEAN A FRIGGIN THING
her and NOW and these kinds of femminists are completely and 100 % TOTALLY IRELAVANT and they have been since the late 90's when the president of the US sexually harrassed a young women in the oval office
AND THEY SAID NOTHING............

"Really? How much have Fannie and Freddie cost the taxpayers so far?"

Six and a half billion per year, which would be regarded by plenty of people as "too much." Which means her statement is correct. The fact it might be a lot less than the bailout is going to cost doesn't mean that FNMA hasn't already cost America too much.

Let's say I buy a luxury car. Every month I have to get the thing repaired, and I spend $10,000 total on repairs. Then something catastrophic happens to the car and I am going to have to spend $100,000 to get the car fixed. When talking about the catastrophic event, I tell my friend that "this car has already become too expensive for me." Would I be wrong to say that? No. Are you wrong? Yes.

"when you try to change the meaning of other peoples' words."

I wasn't trying to change any meanings; I was pointing out if you believe a tiny percentage of taxpayer funds equates to "taxpayer funded", then even conceding that, Palin made a blunder about the underlying structure of the lending giants, and who would ultimately be responsible for the bailout.

"Yep. But that's what Sarah Palin suggested."

Only in your pathetic, feeble mind. How sad that you have to pretend people meant things that can barely even be construed from their words, all for political fodder. Get a life.

"The fact it might be a lot less than the bailout is going to cost doesn't mean that FNMA hasn't already cost America too much."

Palin spoke as if the burden was lessened. It was greatened.

Spin away.

"Palin spoke as if the burden was lessened."

No she didn't. No spin required. You're just retarded if you actually believe what you're saying.

"Spin away."

#298 | Posted by Danforth

The irony eludes this Obama supporter.

Danforth has contorted himself into a pretzel.

This lady is nothing but a smart ass cheap shot artist bitch and time will prove it out.

Bottom fucking line !!!

"When talking about the catastrophic event, I tell my friend that "this car has already become too expensive for me." Would I be wrong to say that? No."

But that suggests you're going to get rid of your car, and the expense will forever be behind you.

To complete the analogy, tell the friend the car has already cost you too much, and then pull out the credit card and put the full $100,000 on it, and commit to another $100,000 a year for the next two years.

"You're just retarded if you actually believe what you're saying."

Says the guy who has to rely on the correction on Tuesday to defend what Palin said the previous Friday.

"But that suggests you're going to get rid of your car, and the expense will forever be behind you."

And just as with the Palin situation, you once again add facts and "suggestions" that simply don't exist. I could easily just be talking about the current expense I'm facing with the car and complaining about how much I've already spent already. Same with Palin. End of story.

I'm relying on Palin's own statement only. I contend that you are the only person who reads it that way and that you are stupid for doing so.

Another source of your odd interpretation of her comment could be the huffington article, which says Palin said FNMA "had" gotten too expensive, when in reality she said "have" gotten too expensive. "Have" sounds to be talking more about the present situation than "had." Not sure if that makes a difference to your strange way of reading her comment.

Obam said McCain, far from being a maverick whos "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

BTW the house/senate has a 9% approval rating.

#267 | Posted by libslayer

you are absolutely right! However, who was it that controlled the WH and both houses of congress for six of the last eight years and the WH for that whole time. Part of the problem that congress has a 9% approval rating is that they have not been able to work with obstructionist Republicans and a president who uses the veto the same way he eats pretzels. BTW, you never did answer me on you bullshit insinuation from a few days ago, when I asked you for some detail.

"I would add, how did he pay for law school...."

Posted by libslayer at 2008-09-07 11:18 AM

I guess I will just have to assume that you are making shit up.

Until they started buying up sub-prime mortgages and promoting the housing meltdown, Fan adn Fred were fairly conservative. Fact is this has been on the business radar BUT the do-noything Pelosi/ Reed congress chose to play politics and sit on their hands... blaming Palin for a mis-statement is such a JOKE when your wonderful Congress should have acted years ago. Of course, when the ranking Dems are getting sweatheart deals from Countrywide (Dodd), why should they act.

Have" sounds to be talking more about the present situation than "had." Not sure if that makes a difference to your strange way of reading her comment.

#306 | Posted by JOE

If she had said "are" she would have been correct. The truth is that although the govt. was guaranteeing the loans made by FNMA and FHLMC, these two institutions were making profits for their stockholders until a few years ago when the bubble burst. They may be costing the govt money NOW, but that was not the case when the market was normal.

"They may be costing the govt money NOW, but that was not the case when the market was normal."

Actually, they have always cost the government money.

"making profits for their stockholders until a few years ago when the bubble burst"

It wasn't the Bubble, it was taking on more risk of sub-primes while Congress looked the other way

BUT the do-noything Pelosi/ Reed congress chose to play politics and sit on their hands... blaming Palin for a mis-statement is such a JOKE when your wonderful Congress should have acted years ago. Of course, when the ranking Dems are getting sweatheart deals from Countrywide (Dodd), why should they act.

#308 | Posted by smashmouth

Ahhhhh, yes...blame Reed & Pelosi. You are probably right that this pair sucks as congressional leadership, BUT, It was you pal Greenspan and his buddies in the administration that wanted to keep the housing market going even by using artificial monetary means to do this. They saw things going that way and it was their lack of oversight that caused the bubble and the problems we are facing now

JOE.......danforth "AINT" stupid.
he's just anoter biased and prejudiced liberal who is SCARE OUT OF HIS WITS because of the polls and the way things are going for the messiah.......
they are in the process of trashing her anyway they can even with bringing out hillary and even bill
forgive them because they are getting the shit scared out of them and they just 'caint hep it'

geez.......I love it when greenspan is brought up
so how long was he in that position and for how many administrations?

Greenspan and the administration's Oversight... Gee... this wasn't a problem until a couple years ago... let's ask the one of the guys that watches over banking... oh ya, he's on the take... Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

geez.......I love it when greenspan is brought up
so how long was he in that position and for how many administrations?

#314 | Posted by bushlovertwo

you're right, but under whose administration did the these policies change?

good point but please refer to post from smashmouth and lets make sure that we look for culprits IN BOTH PLACES>

Cut her some slack she is just another "typical white person."

Does anyone know what the difference between a Hockey mom and a Pit Bull is ????

LIPSTICK !!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA.....HAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHA...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA..!!!!

Man.... that is just so funny !!!!!

Does anyone know the difference between users JAMES_DEAN and USATRUEANDBLUE7???

Party affiliation.

FACT!

Danforth, you're out of your friggin' mind. If you believe what you say you do, you also have a problem with the author of this piece, whose objections to the Palin statement were that Fannie and Freddie were private companies.

Lemme help. From the very beginning, FNM and FRE were too expensive for taxpayers. They became even more expensive for taxpayers. Over the past year they became catastrophically expensive for taxpayers. And Sunday the taxpayers got stuck with the tab of reorganizing these GSE's.

And I submit that the Bidens and the Obamas of the world might be similarly well informed, had their party not been taking lobbying money from Fannie and Freddie for years.

I was actually going to come here and defend 'Plain' by saying the 'gaffe' thing is getting out of hand. I thought she simply misspoke or called them by the wrong name, but to not even know that they aren't tax payer funded (until NOW that is) is just scary.

I here Barrack thinks there are 57 States.

(He meant his Muslim states.)

FACT!

#9 | Posted by James_Dean at 2008-09-08 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

There aren't 57 Muslim states, retard!

FACT!

Get a load of this guy. It's as if he didn't read the article or any of the responses.

And I submit that the Bidens and the Obamas of the world might be similarly well informed, had their party not been taking lobbying money from Fannie and Freddie for years.

#321 | Posted by rightisright at 2008-09-09 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

McCain too, if his top economic adviser wasn't the one writing the laws that caused this to happen.

"If you believe what you say you do, you also have a problem with the author of this piece, whose objections to the Palin statement were that Fannie and Freddie were private companies."

Why is that? 6.5 billion, out of their entire budget, was hardly government owned. And for what it's going to eventually cost, $6.5 billion won't even cover a year's interest. But why be naive? Her Friday statement necessitated the Tuesday clarification. And the Wall "tax cuts increase revenues" Street Journal was only too happy to oblige. While I realize her name is on the bottom, are you actually going to pretend these are the words and thoughts of Sarah Palin?

And ultimately, what sense does it make to say 'Freddie & Fannie have cost the taxpayers too much' when the decision was to go ahead and charge the taxpayers more?

"And Sunday the taxpayers got stuck with the tab of reorganizing these GSE's. "

Exactly who wrote the laws which got us here?

"The fact that you think from your postings on this thread would suggest to any reader that you are honest gives great leaps as to your character and what YOU believe honest means.

The fact that you KNOW the falsehoods of palin, yet push it as one sided, suggests again as to your character value of what being honest really actually means." - MONEY #80

Hang on a minute, MONEY. If I've been anything on the DR it's honest, because... let's face it... my humor is mediocre at best. You use some pretty presumptuous language... "would suggest to ~any~ reader" and "the ~fact~ that you KNOW the falsehoods of palin" ((Maybe you can teach me to use italics))

What, in your view, was I dishonest about? And what, in your view, are the facts about Palin's falsehoods? Do you mean the following "facts"?

Was it Palin's cutting special needs funding? Nope.
Was it Palin's banning books? Nope.
Was it being a member of a secessionist party or backing Pat Buchanan? Nope.
Was it pushing to teach creationism in schools? Nope.

All were bogus. And this isn't taking into account any number of other sexist concerns and the whole flap over a pregnant daughter, Palin's speech, etc.

I thought she simply misspoke or called them by the wrong name, but to not even know that they aren't tax payer funded (until NOW that is) is just scary.

#322 | Posted by COMMONSENSE
* * * *

On Sunday, over one hundred billion dollars of US treasury money went to purchase stakes in FNM and FRE as part of a special preferred series of stock, to shore up their balance sheets. What's more, the Treasury explicitly said that they would guarantee all the paper issued by FNM and FRE, and would redeem bonds at par plus accrued interest in the event of any defaults. If that doesn't meet your definition of "taxpayer funded", please advise.

All were bogus.

Not one was bogus, but that would depend on what you consider bogus.

I have read the article oohrah, and what is humorous is you cling to things not being a lie but could careless "if they are right."

I bet you don't mind paying someone per diem while living at home.

what about obama's statement of 57 states, poor black man not sure how many states cant fault him for the failure of the public school system

Joe: The error in Palin's comments is shown by this comment from the Republican-friendly Cato Institute: "[T]here was never a taxpayer payment before [the bailout]," said Gerald P. O'Driscoll, an economist with the Cato Institute. "[Fannie and Freddie] were not taxpayer funded."

Your link describes the "unpriced benefits" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have enjoyed from their relationship to the federal government. But they didn't cost taxpayers a cent, which is why Palin's comment was incorrect.

It's a fine point, but a presidential or vice presidential candidate really should understand how Fannie and Freddie work, especially considering that they've been in the news for weeks and are now being bailed out.

"Not one was bogus, but that would depend on what you consider bogus." - MONEY

Huh? All are credible? Maybe you can explain that to Newsweek/factcheck.

Simply making an accusation and relying on accomplices in the mainstream media run with it does not truth make - regardless of party.

"...could careless "if they are right." - MON
It won't affect who I'll vote for if that's what you mean. You didn't address my comment - if your 'bridge to nowhere' claim was found to have been false, would that cause you to vote for McCain? If not, then don't hold me to a standard you yourself choose not to uphold.

Your side's VP once dropped from the POTUS race for plagerizing another's speech, among other utterances which I'm sure will find the light of day in October. Does his struggle with integrity cause you to spurn Obama? Do you care that Biden did that? Will you publicly admit those feelings? Or do you sing the praises of that statesman Biden without regard to any of that?

Once again, my overriding point deals with the left's crying wolf regarding Palin. When/if credible and serious accusations arise, Palin's been largely insulated due to the previous pistol whipping she's unfairly received. The court of public opinion won't be as receptive to your concerns. Your comments on that?

I thought she simply misspoke or called them by the wrong name, but to not even know that they aren't tax payer funded (until NOW that is) is just scary.

#322 | Posted by COMMONSENSE
* * * *

On Sunday, over one hundred billion dollars of US treasury money went to purchase stakes in FNM and FRE as part of a special preferred series of stock, to shore up their balance sheets. What's more, the Treasury explicitly said that they would guarantee all the paper issued by FNM and FRE, and would redeem bonds at par plus accrued interest in the event of any defaults. If that doesn't meet your definition of "taxpayer funded", please advise.

#328 | Posted by rightisright at 2008-09-09 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did you see that "Until NOW" part?

If can't keep up, stop playing.

yet another attack on her personal life.
/sigh

This playing with words is ridiculous... All this really proves is we need an investigation into Dodd and Barney Frank since they were Chairs of banking and finance Committees not to mention the rest of Obama's buddies for letting this go on under their watch...

Talk about a massive fraud...

" the rest of Obama's buddies for letting this go on under their watch... "

Who wrote the current laws, Einstein?

And how many Senators does it take to refuse cloture?

And who refused to close debates at more than twice the all-time pace?

"This playing with words is ridiculous..."

Yes. You seem convinced they don't mean anything.

What did you say?

So are you excusing them for not performing their responsibilities... of course, when they receive loans from Countrywide and donations to campaigns, I guess that's an excuse for doing nothing...

"So are you excusing them for not performing their responsibilities... "

No, I'm not. Investigate them, and string them up, if needed. The only one trying to excuse bad behavior due to the letter after their name is you.

That, and a total ignorance of how governance works.

If I remember correctly, the US Treasury funds come from taxes...therefore, I believe that the taxpayer can be said to generate these funds... when they are spent and/or allocated for any reason, it is an amount of 'taxpayer' monies used... that seems to be 'taxpayer funded' money... of course, we have some 'borrowed' money sitting around, but we borrow when there is not enough taxpayer funds available.. sure this is a 'taxpayer funded' event when we bail someone out... that money could be spent on other programs.. but, the essence is that there would not be any money for bailouts without it coming out of taxpayer pockets.. seems the issue these days is how the taxpayers continue to fund problems that should not be in the main stream of using those funds... direct or indirect...

This $11 trillion mess DWARFS everything this incompetent administraion has done in the last 7-1/2 years.

Without the no-doc mortgage program there would have been no economy during the 2004 election. So Greenspan opened the floodgates in order to insure another Republican victory (just barely worked thanks to a little Ohio fraud).

Reading self proclaimed "Conservatives" on this site leaves one wondering how they manage to place all the fault for this fraud at the feet of unqualified borrowers. Who has the power to make these loans and collect bonuses for Christs sake? The bonuses are secure and the foolish borrowers are homeless. Only 4.5 million more to go.

Its all bullshit and its bad for you.

taxes..........yes TAXES

and where is the outrage over the fact that rangle is now in trouble for not paying taxes on a "VILLA" that he owns. I watched him say that his wife was the one who did the taxes....what a man he is to throw it off on her

and OHYEAH>.........he is chairman of WAYS AND MEANS and he blames HIS WIFE WHEN taxes dont get paid..................unfuckin
believable that we arent hearing all sorts of shit about this.
or is it?

What crap from a goodly % of Retorters there is in blogs above.

Oh well...and by the way where is the money coming from as our US Treasury Department puts in $billions to support Fred and Fannie including paying $millions for severance pay to the fired CEOs and their claque who ran Mae and Mac. Where was Barney Frank and the Congressional oversight: busy blasting President Bush and General Petraus?

Will taxpayers ever get their investment back with interest? Shouldn't the former management creeps be put in stocks and on display? But no. They retire multi- millionaires, as I understand how Washington operates.

heard this debated last night and what will the gov do about the benefits coming to the people in charge.

Oh well...and by the way where is the money coming from as our US Treasury Department puts in $billions to support Fred and Fannie including paying $millions for severance pay to the fired CEOs and their claque who ran Mae and Mac. Where was Barney Frank and the Congressional oversight: busy blasting President Bush and General Petraus?

#343 | Posted by truthisgood at 2008-09-10 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, you only have to look at the John McSames chief financial adviser to see where much of the sub prime crisis came from.

Palin is clueless

As an independent minded registered Republican what a disgrace of a pick.Anybody who wants the best for the country knows this is a serious mistake.I watched the debate when Mccain said he did not know much about the economy.I saw TimRus sert take him to task on this .Palin is obviuosly clueless given this comment.Conservative and doesnt know that these companies are private companies.
Why dont many Republicans actually listen a little before they think she is the best thing since sliced bread.But she is not giving interviews .I am not surprised Definetly No Maggie Thatcher.Maggie was prochoice anyway
Partisanship clearly hurts the real debate
Do we choose politicians by their policies and debate their policies or by how they are performing in the soap opera