I am curious of your take on Palin at this point? I am not really on her bandwagon, but then again, the woman is pretty sly, and she is a fighter. I do think the left is deathly afraid of her, which explains why they sent plane loads of investigators and reporters to Wasilla, and it is why they miss no chance to denigrate her.
okie, Wrong again! The left welcomes here with open arms to run in 2012; to ensure that Obama or anybody else that runs will win! Your perspective of reality is non-existent, because you fail to see the "obvious."
You may be right to a point. The left may very well want her to run because they see her as a person they love to hate, they will miss no opportunity to demonize her, which they tried to do with Reagan for example. They were unable to demonize Reagan, but they indeed tried to do it by trying to scare people by telling them he was a dangerous and reckless man to have access to nuclear weapons. I remember that pretty well. They tried to convince everyone Reagan would have us in a nuclear war. Of course the opposite happened.
With Sarah, they will paint her as an inexperienced woman that is in way over her head, impulsive, bigoted, shrill, stupid, and dangerous as well, like they tried to paint Reagan. This is the way the libs think, that is their mindset. Any woman from Alaska that hunts, fishes, and rides snowmobiles, they will invent something if they can't investigate her and find something. To an extent, they have been marginally successful.
The reason they do fear her to some extent is the fact that she is very outspoken and is unabashedly patriotic, anti-big government, and very clear about her beliefs. She appeals to those of us that respect traditional America, the small town work ethic, entrepeneurship, and the American spirit of freedom and individual responsibility. This does not sit well with the libs that have a chip on their shoulder about America, and want to blame it for alot of stuff. Also, Sarah believes in capitalism, example oil, she is proud of Alaska's oil industry, but the oil industry is a good example of an industry that liberals love to hate, as they do much of capitalistic endeavors.
I have not completely decided on Palin whether she is a genuine person yet that I want to trust. She will need to become well versed in all issues, that will be very important. I don't know if she is a small town woman that found out she can be successful to an extent, and is trying to ride the wave of celebrity, perhaps she is too caught up in herself? I don't know that yet, but I want to see a mature person emerge that knows issues in detail and that can deliver speeches in a way that indicates a thoughtful, mature, and smart woman that I think she could be. If instead she tries to be a celebrity, outfits herself with expensive wardrobes, and only politics for her own excitement and achievement, I will not support her.
P.S. One of the ways, LBJ was able to beat Goldwater in a landslide was to scare the bejeebers out of people. They painted Goldwater, who was a conservative that was very clear and straight about his beliefs, they painted Goldwater as dangerous with the nuclear switch. I still remember the little girl picking daisies, next picture the mushroom cloud.
I will post the Youtube so people can see how the libs operate. It worked in the 60's. They have tried the same tactic all my life, one of the reasons I was turned off the libs demagoguery a very long time ago. I thought about that in Vietnam a number of times, after LBJ expanded that war.
I have not completely decided on Palin whether she is a genuine person yet that I want to trust
she reminds me a lot of Jessica "I hate to admit it, but yes, I swear to you, I really thought Chicken of the Sea was actually chicken. That's how I really think" Simpson.
Any gag for attention, even the stupid act. Then covering it with a lie. http://www.chickenortuna.com/snacks.php?page_code=101
There was a question, Foxy, regarding Ms Palin on Rasmussen. They were going to be asking 1000 likely voters this:
"If she runs for, but does not get the Republican nomination in 2012, should she run as an independent?"
I said 12% of the 1000 would say yes, but that is neither here nor there. What struck me is how the political junkies on Rasmussen thought the poll would turn out. Despite my admonition about putting aside one's own opinion about the issue and focusing on what the folks being polled will say, the prediction from the guessers on Rasmussen is that 35% will say yes.
Results tomorrow.
I guessed 25%. But that was based on how I think folks are thinking now. If the blogs, talk radio, conservative media, facebook/twitter etc. keep hammering away on the Cap & Trade and Healthcare reform and folks keep turning negative toward those things as currently presented at the rate the approval ratings are dropping, it won't be too much longer before somebody they like who they can trust to be opposed to such things will look better and better. And people who aren't committed to destroying her do like her.
But it is three whole years before the 2012 candidate will be chosen in the primaries. I'm not smart enough to predict what the mood of the country will be like at that time. Or even next month.
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
People accuse me of parroting Rush Limbaugh, etc. I just want to take this opportunity here to say I think the jury is still out on Palin as far as I am concerned. Limbaugh, Hannity, and a number of other people pushed her candidacy and jumped on her bandwagon, I think prematurely. I think she could turn out to be somebody I will support, but she has to prove a few things more first in my opinion. I think she was a decent governor at least, and so she has already outshown Obama, I don't think he has succeeded at organizing Chicago, or being a good senator, or doing much of anything great as far as I can tell. He did run a shrewd campaign, but it was with the help of a whole bunch of dupes in the press, so big deal.
Thank you. Obama's ONLY management credentials were running his campaign for President. And he wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good at doing that if the media hadn't given him 3 to 1 favorable coverage over McCain. Even without that, I think he did a better job than McCain did, but we're seeing now that running a campaign isn't quite the same thing as running the executive office of the USA. And it ill equips one to do so.
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:09 pm
@okie,
A point from the past, in regard to Goldwater, I remember the press ballyhooing the virtual death of the Republican Party or the conservative movement, with the landslide defeat of Goldwater. Libs are saying the same thing now, ci loves to point out the conservatives are as good as dead, dinosaurs, outdated, etc.
I will therefore love it when Obama runs their party into the ground, setting the stage for a huge conservative movement resurgence and Republican victories in 2010 and beyond. At least I think it is a realistic possibility. Its worth hoping for and fighting for, after all its the country we fought for, I don't want to see it destroyed and flushed down the drain by the likes of Obama and his followers.
Not an encouraging article, and whats worse, there may be evidence the government may have made false assumptions about jobs in June, in other words possibly lying? I only quote the first part of the article, but it doesn't get better. At the end, I quote the conclusion that Obama's stimulus plan was not stimulus but instead a liberal wish list.
The Economy Is Even Worse Than You Think The average length of unemployment is higher than it's been since government began tracking the data in 1948.
The recent unemployment numbers have undermined confidence that we might be nearing the bottom of the recession. What we can see on the surface is disconcerting enough, but the inside numbers are just as bad.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics preliminary estimate for job losses for June is 467,000, which means 7.2 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. The cumulative job losses over the last six months have been greater than for any other half year period since World War II, including the military demobilization after the war. The job losses are also now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all job growth from the previous expansion.
Here are 10 reasons we are in even more trouble than the 9.5% unemployment rate indicates:
David Klein .- June's total assumed 185,000 people at work who probably were not. The government could not identify them; it made an assumption about trends. But many of the mythical jobs are in industries that have absolutely no job creation, e.g., finance. When the official numbers are adjusted over the next several months, June will look worse. ....
.... "No wonder poll after poll shows a steady erosion of confidence in the stimulus. So what kind of second-act stimulus should we look for? Something that might have a real multiplier effect, not a congressional wish list of pet programs."
.- June's total assumed 185,000 people at work who probably were not. The government could not identify them; it made an assumption about trends. But many of the mythical jobs are in industries that have absolutely no job creation, e.g., finance.
The Drudge Report has been busy today, but before these cycle off:
Quote:
White House putting off budget update
Jul 20 11:02 AM US/Eastern
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape.
The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.
The release of the update"usually scheduled for mid-July"has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town Aug. 7 on its summer recess.
The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.
The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, said on Sunday that the administration believes the "chances are high" of getting a health care bill by then. But new analyses showing runaway costs are jeopardizing Senate passage.
(Insert: TRANSLATION: They don't want concerns about deficits and national bankruptcy to stir folks up before that healthcare bill is a done deal.)
Meanwhile some of the contracts awarded with our stimulus money.
Quote:
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $2,531,600 FOR 'HAM, WATER ADDED, COOKED, FROZEN, SLICED, 2-LB'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,191,200 FOR '2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $351,807 FOR 'REPLACE AND UPGRADE THE DUMBWAITER'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,562,568 FOR 'MOZZARELLA CHEESE'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $5,708,260 FOR 'PROCESS CHEESE'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $16,784,272 FOR 'CANNED PORK'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $1,444,100 FOR 'REPAIR DOOR BLDG 5112'...
RECOVERY.GOV // AWARDED: $541,119 FOR 'INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL'...
Links to each item on Drudge as well as an article that does make a pretty good defense for the ham.
I wonder though, how much more efficient it would have been to help local soup kitchens, food banks, and thrift shops take care of the local folks in need and how much more mileage they would have gotten out of each $ than the government will get. How does big government determine who really needs all that ham?
Now it’s true that this “usually” happens in mid-July. But it’s also “usually” the case that the President in any given July is the same President you had the previous July. In transition years, it’s normal for the budget process to be pushed back in time. The 1993 budget review came out at the end of August and the 2001 budget review came out on August 22. There’s no conspiracy here.
Don't let that stop you from baseless accusations, though.
More and more, they are displaying a Conservative bent these days. For example -
Quote:
The release of the update"usually scheduled for mid-July"has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town Aug. 7 on its summer recess.
The writer fails to add that he is the one speculating about the delay. But, I was mostly speaking about Drudge and Breitbart, a pair of nincompoops if there ever were two of 'em.
Quote:
Thinkprogress sure is though.
They source meticulously, and I think you would be pretty hard-pressed to find anything they post or do which isn't rooted in fact.
Cyclo, It should be obvious by now how the conservatives play this game; they use straw-man, non-sequiturs, red herrings, and everything else under the book that tries to divert attention from the facts and evidence presented.
When asked a direct question, all we get is silence - or what can be described by the above explanation.
I tire of their games, and get very impatient trying to pull some credible sources for their opinions that are usually found to be based on FOX news or their own brains; and usually through the misinterpretation of history and facts.
0 Replies
realjohnboy
1
Reply
Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:47 pm
Good evening. The major stock indices rose about 1.2% Monday. The catalyst seemed to be a basketful of economic stats. The one that caught my eye was the spread in short and longer term interest rates. The Fed funds rate is still about 0% - the equivalent of keeping money in a mattress. The 10 year Treasury Bill or Bond rate yield rose...meaning that the prices of the bonds fell.
People are putting their money elsewhere. But where? Perhaps into the stock market or perhaps into deposits in banks. If it is the latter, that could help the banks to be able to lend, finally.
rjb, Savings rates for Americans is increasing, so it's not surprising that the banks are returning TARP money. The big problem is that they're still playing the money making games not dissimilar from the derivatives they created that got everybody in trouble; they're making money without producing anything productive. They are creating the same kind of bubble and producing their own wealth while the main street people watch every dollar they earn and spend. The feds need to control these MBAs who create these instruments that create wealth without creating goods and services.
Banks are again going back to paying their employees those huge bonuses, because they are again playing the money games with derivative-like instruments that they trade on the open market to create their profits.
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Mon 20 Jul, 2009 09:15 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
People are putting their money elsewhere. But where? Perhaps into the stock market or perhaps into deposits in banks. If it is the latter, that could help the banks to be able to lend, finally.
I have had no trouble borrowing a line of credit at 1/8 below prime, so I was not aware banks would not loan money, unless you are talking about people or businesses that are poor risks? I'm not sure that is wise. Thats what got us into this mess.
I have had no trouble borrowing a line of credit at 1/8 below prime, so I was not aware banks would not loan money, unless you are talking about people or businesses that are poor risks? I'm not sure that is wise. Thats what got us into this mess.
That's good. Honest. I can come up with some anecdotal stories that go the other way, with banks backing out of funding loans to people who had gotten a loan commitment letter a couple of weeks earlier. But that is anecdotal stuff and probably doesn't count for much.
There was an interview this morning on NPR with Neil Barofsky. He is the Special Inspector General for TARP. He said that 50% of the $700B TARP money appropriated has been distributed to the banks. 80% of the banks surveyed claimed that the money had been used for lending.
A listener posted this response on the Comments page. I think it sums up my attitude:
"Banks have contractual commitments to certain borrowers, on which they would have been loathe to renege and probably would have without TARP; and I suspect these loans have absorbed much of the TARP money. This obscures the banks' current extreme risk aversion, which has excluded from access to newly created credit (those) businesses and individuals who have been and continue to be absolutely solid borrowers."
A New American Jobs Tax Credit: Obama and Biden will provide a new temporary tax credit to companies that add jobs here in the United States. During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired. For example, if a company that currently has 10 U.S. employees increases its domestic full time employment to 20 employees, this company would get a $30,000 tax credit -- enough to offset the entire added payroll tax costs to the company for the first $50,000 of income for the new employees. The tax credit will benefit all companies creating net new jobs, even those struggling to make a profit.
2009 is almost half over, and the tax credit hasnt happened yet.
Did he "forget" about it, or decide to break his promise?
And if he truly wanted to help the average worker, he would follow thru with this one...
Quote:
Penalty-free hardship withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k)s in 2008 and 2009: Many families are going to be facing unique economic hardship over the coming year. To help these families pay their bills and their mortgages and make it through these tough times, Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009.
But he apparently decided that we didnt need our money after all, so we cant touch it even if we needed it.
