This was trumpeted as the best line of her speech on Morning Joe and no one pointed out that it is a flat out false statement.

"Flat-out false statement"? Where?

Even MM doesn't refute the claim that Obama has "not authored a single major law or reform."

MM is simply raising a beef that the media has not replied that Obama has supposedly "played key roles" in passing some legislation.

There is no "false statement." Period. Just sour grapes by MM after an amazing speech by Palin last night, IMHO.

That was a bullsh*t speech, written by a Bush speechwriter. Nothing there except the usual tired worn-out Rethuglican talking points garbage. Yawn.

Let's just wait and see what happens when she is away from the stage and teleprompter.

And whom was the author of Obama's Speech?  Please share! 

Think this'll answer your question...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/27/obamas-convention-speech-inspired-by-kennedy-reagan-clinton/

Inspried by, but whom wrote the speech, or as Obama is used to Co Authored. 

Obama wrote his speech on race and America, so I'm betting he wrote his convention speech.  Who do you claim wrote it?

He'll probably come back here and say something STUPID like William Ayers or Rev. Wright. BWAHAHAHA! A big fat barrel o' laughs!

Stupid conservatives... the hell with them, the gloves are off and I'm ready for war. That's what this is - war.

They hate America.  Just six months ago Palin wrote the Alaska Independence Party - a group that her husband was a member of for seven years - a group that has "hatred for the American government" and calls the American flag a "damn flag" - and she told them to keep up the great work.

I want that out front and center. I want the media and The Enquirer - my god, they just might be our best allies now! - to expose this horrid woman and her 'dude' for what they really are.

Everybody can start by reading this CBS News piece about Palin and the Alaske Independence Party.  And then bring it up you hear anyone talking about how wonderful Sarah Palin is:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/animal/main4407224.shtml

Here's another piece about Palin and the AIP:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

AIP website intro: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

http://www.akip.org/introduction.html

Palin to AIP Convention last March: "Keep up the good work!  Have an inspiring convention!"

That makes her a goddam traitor... she should be brought up on charges.

What does the Constitution say about that?

"What does the Constitution say about that?"

That we have freedom of speech

Wait a minute.

We still have a constitution?

Freedom of speech indeed.  Palin has every right to support and wish well an organization working to separate Alaska from a country which government it despises.  But here's a simple follow-up question for you: Does her (and her husband's) support for this cause make her unfit to be 2nd in line for the Presidency?

Does her (and her husband's) support for this cause make her unfit to be 2nd in line for the Presidency?

BINGO!!!!

Tell that to the Ugly American.

Thanks, WZ. Good piece.

Great, first we have a president wannabe who wasn't born in the United States who chose a VP who wants to secede from the United States of America.

 

America First....to be destroyed! 

all this hullabaloo.  face it fellahs, you can stick a fork in obama, he is so done.

Hissy

A couple of days ago I said that Sarah Palin was Thomas Eagleton in stiletto-spike high heels.

After listening to her speech, I can only conclude now that she is Spiro Agnew in drag. 

Agnew won.

Actually, Nixon won, to the detriment of the republic.

Agnew was simply a smug, mean-spirited, lying, neoMcCarthyistic hack who ultimately disgraced himself, his office, and his nation.

And Repubs don't give a shit. This Palin is a dangerous evangelical spokesmodel.

No argument from me, Roundhouse.

Your point's well taken. It is imperitive that the neocon's stranglehold on power be broken NOW! America can't afford four more years of the Constitution being shredded and the national treasury being looted by these greedy black shirts. If we slumber our way through this election, we'll almost deserve what we'll get.  

No doubt my friend, we agree. I keep saying it, The Obama camp needs to kick some ass. If we think that playing the same old above it all song and dance in election after election will turn back these anti-constitutional bastards, then we are crazy and we deserve what we get.

Jesus Christ my fellow Democrats, defense IS NOT working. Go on offense, we are not like them. We don't have to lie about them, we don't have to misrepresent ourselves. All we have to do is tell the truth about the Republican Party: their platform is war profits, slave labor, forced conception, police state and executive authoritarianism.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Dems need to fight dirty, but without stooping to the lowest levels of the Republican Party.  We can fight dirty, but still take the high road.

 we don't have to misrepresent ourselves

You are liberals - If you represent yorselves as liberals you will be roundly rejected.  Democrat party leadership knows this - which is why they take the tack they do.

I call BS with that stupid remark.  The Democratic Party has alway stood for change, while the Republican Party has always advocated moving morals and values back to the age of Ward and June Cleaver.

You righties just cannot accept the fact that you bring nothing to the table, no issues, no solutions, just the same sh!t different day.

At least Dems don't have to lie and obfuscate to get people to vote for them.

You wanna start that up again?

Your side offers NOTHING. Watching those 'brilliant' speeches confirms that fact.

Agnew won.

And ended up in prison...

Yeah, some 'victory', huh?

Too bad Tricky Dicky didn't join him.

Rabbitluver, I'll be the first to admit Ayers and Wright have said stupid things in the past.

And you'll be the last to admit that religious zealots like Sarah Rapist Bill of Rights Palin have hijacked the Republican Party.

That's all right. Let them continue to spew their garbage. Ayers and Wright - stale beyond belief. But let them continue to go there... no problem.

Sarah is the gift that keeps on giving. Item: After her speech Wednesday night, EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS were donated... not to McCain/Palin but to OBAMA/BIDEN. Nice work there, ditz. Keep it up.

Since we have her under the microscope, here is something that may be of interest. Wanna learn her REAL record? Look no further than here...

http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341

Who co-authored John McCain's memoir?  Or authored, as McCain would be used to...

I would doubt that McCain wrote the memoir.  He can't even remember that Czechoslovakia isn't a country anymore.

He didn't write it.  That's the joke.

:) - Yes, I figured as much, decide to add my own little jab in there...

And it was a terrorist fist jab at that!   ;0)

I takes two to do the 'terrorist fist jab' - care to join me? :)

Written by Matt Scully, former Bush speechwriter.  From MSNBC - boldface emphasis is mine:

USA Today curtain-raises Palin’s speech tonight with this story: “Call it McCain's Gamble. The Republican presidential candidate is pulling bigger crowds and a gusher of cash to his campaign since his unexpected pick Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. But questions about how rigorously John McCain vetted Palin and fresh scrutiny of the governor's record are fueling a larger debate about McCain's shoot-from-the-hip style and Palin's qualifications, in a crisis, to be president.

The piece also previews the speech. Written by former White House speechwriter Matt Scully, it will combine autobiography and policy. ‘She's going to talk to the delegates about the future of this country, about how to reform broken institutions of government,’ says McCain strategist Steve Schmidt. ‘People will hear about her reform-and-change message’ and about energy and its links to national security. ‘She'll also communicate directly to the American people who she is,’ Schmidt says.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/03/1331277.aspx

Palin's speechwriters failed her last night.  Do you even think she knew that she was lying?  She's still got a long ways to go if she wants to be as good at lying as former POW (and presidential candidate) John McCain.

Matthew Scully, one of Bush's speechwriters. Big mistake for her, good fortune for us.

Nicely Put, Lot of "Co's" next to his name.

From The Google . . .

During the first - 8 - eight years of Obama's elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 33 regarding healthcare reform, 25 on poverty and public assistance, 12 crime fighting bills, 7 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. is first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included

1. Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
2. Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
3. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4. 2007 Government Ethics Bill, became law,
5. Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

It looks like Obama has done more for veterans in his four years of office than McCain did in his 25.

Please provide a link besides blogs to verify this.

Sourcewatch has some Katrina-related legislation that Obama worked with Coburn on and even has his name on:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama:_U.S._presidential_election%2C_2008/On_Hurricane_Katrina

They also have information on ethics reform, election reform, and others:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Image:Barackobama.jpg

Here is a post about Obama-Talent act about tax credits:

http://www.e85fuel.com/pdf/e-85fuelutilizationandinfrastructuredevelopmentincentivesactof2005.pdf

I hope that's a start.  I have to get back to work.

hmm from your last source; a quote from Obama April 27, 2005...

"The bill I am introducing today, along with my distinguished colleagues from Illinois and Missouri, is designed to do something about fuel prices and our reliance on foreign oil—something rooted in reality, something achievable in the short term, and something that actually works."

Guess he was wrong.

Thanks, GOV, you have done some good homework. Too bad the media doesn't have the basic computer skills to get information that is available to anyone who wants the truth. But, that's too much to ask, isn't it? The extremists in the Republican cartel have pulled an effective rabbit (moose?) out of the hat. Most of us have known that high school kid who displays annoying self-obsession and drive that is far beyond their age or experience. They ruthlessly campaign for senior class president or the lead in the school play by undercutting the opposition's qualifications or cozying up to the administration with fake charm and platitudes. They usually keep a list of any individuals who "wrongs" them or otherwise created an obstacle to their agenda. In addition, they always harbor strong feelings of self righteousness and a sense of moral mission. Unfortunately, they also have a gift for revenge and never forget a slight. They are highly organized and possess incredible memory. Physical attractiveness is used to charm when intimidation fails, but are not above using said intimidation when expedient. The one flaw that stands out is an unconscious facial expression that demonstrates many of the above listed features: a smirking and chilling little smile, pressing the lips together and a slight upward thrust of the chin, to drive home an insult directed toward an opponent. Ridicule is a favorite weapon.

Make no mistake about such people. They are extremely adept at gathering a large following of supporters, either through the aforementioned intimidation or charm.

This is a brilliant choice for McCain.

Palin's speech amazing?  You've got to be on drugs - or you were dropped on your head multiple times, even as a teenager trying to nurse from your mother.  Sheesh...

You only see you and Palin are full of it...

simply by going to "factcheck.org"... the website touted by Dick Cheney four years ago... and seeing the link that shows how much bunk this is.  It even includes a link to all the legislation Obama has sponsored.

Of course, it takes a few more clicks of the mouse than your RNC kooky-con website to find the real truth... something of which you obviously have no interest.

yeah, one she didn't write a word of...   brilliant...

"Numerous print media outlets uncritically reported Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that Sen. Barack Obama "is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform -- not even in the state senate," without noting that Obama has played key roles in the passage of reform legislation at both the federal and state levels, including a bill that McCain co-sponsored and thanked Obama for his work on."

This is exactly correct. “played key roles” is NOT the same as authoring. (Of course I’m sure many of you would like it to be.)
It’s like being a Mayor is kind of like being a community organizer .. lol

Gov. Sarah Palin is as good an orator as Obama is will ever be AND she has content in her speech, not all the doom and gloom nonsense Obama spouts.
Gov. Sarah Palin loves America and believes in her strength and greatness .. not the silly “we need to kowtow to the world” position of Obama.

Better speaker, more experienced, a real person with real values.

Palin > Obama, remember that

Holy Crap did your birth doctor bounce you like a basketball on your head several times or what?

Your spaceship is calling you! 

Don't feed the troll!

Mini Drama is just a paid shill of the right.

After all, no one can be THAT consistantly stoopid for free.

Palin > Obama, remember that

Steaming pile of horses**t > Max Dharma - remember THAT!!!!!

The pathetic examples provided by MMFA and the scant role played by Obama in both the state and the US senate really drives the speech of Gov. Palin home.  Her speech was extremely well delivered, and demonstrated she has the courage, strength, and experience to be a very capable VP.  She hit a home run last night.

What on earth makes the examples provided by MMFA "pathetic"?

The fact that they debunk a neocon makes them pathetic, I guess.

As opposed to the assertion that Sarahcuda showed "courage" last night by delivering a prepared diatribe of anti-democrat one-liners in front of a half-drunk, mostly ignorant partisan audience on the third night of a political convention.  That's not pathetic, that's insightful.

Neon, my conspiracy theory has hit a snag. My post of am radio raves for the Mrs. Loopner speech has been deleted, and there was no reference to the suspected censor. Dang!

Intelligence analysis indicates that what we're seeing here is a pre-emptive scrubbing.

Knowing that he could not control himself from adding something stupid to the conversation, rather than embarrass himself and THEN flag, he flagged first, thereby avoiding the embarrassment.  This, combined with the pun and sarcasm blanks their shooting, is a clear signal that their deniability supplies are running low, and we're making headway.

Victory will soon be ours!  TheHumorSurge™ worked!

A-ha! It all makes sense now.I'm still outraged about my deleted post, however.

I know, Col.  I know...

In these times of epic struggle, man pitted against man, one must ask oneself "How can Flying Spaghetti Monster let this happen?".  The reduction of humans into conscienceless fighting animals acting out the most basic instincts of fear and anger transforms our world into a desolate plain of misery.  If we are not lucky, we manage, somehow, to survive.  We envy those who are no longer with us, for they are not condemned to suffer the mourning of their loss.  Memories of them stretch ones faith nearly to its breaking point.

But aren't we just being selfish?  Do we truly have an empathy for those that are gone, or cynical sympathy for ourselves for being put in the postiion of going on without them?

When we truly care, we realize that though we may never enjoy their presence beside us again, they will always be with us in their spirit, their encouragement, their laughs, and even their complaints.  And we can smile, reassured by the knowledge that they would have it this way.

Damn, NEON, we saw the same speech! You summarized it in a few lines that I would have used far too many words to say the same thing. Youze one smart cookie. Thanks.

My foot.

Palin is a religious zealot spokesmodel.

Just admit it, POV. You cons don't love this country, y'all love money.

Of course we love our country roundy.....thats why we are so upset with Obama for voting to cut funding to troops already fighting in a war, and for his refusal to admit that the surge has been successful.  

You love money, that's why you all find it so easy destroy the Constitution.

Torture, war, hate speech. That's the Republican platform.

Your Party has eradicated Habeus Corpus, right to privacy and seperation of powers all in the name making profit form war. You disgust me.

You forgot about killing 100's of thousands of middle easterners, borrowing more money from foreign countries than all previous administrations combined, driving us into record debt, overseeing the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, privatizing military support to the point of electrocuting soldiers as they shower and feeding them bad water, misplacing 100 million dollars somewhere in Iraq, presiding over the deterioration of military hospitals, playing guitar and eating birthday cake while one of our oldest and most culturally significant cities drowns, allowing a mass murderer of 3000 to roam free for 7 years, politicizing our judicial system, expanding government to a record size...

And that is the short list without the many actual crimes committed.

I would have typed the whole list, but didn't want to risk carpal tunnel...

Thank you neon, but I will never forget. I knew that POV couldn't deal with that much reality.

The cons here, they have been off their game of late. They just let me write at will and very rarely respond anymore. Wes, AA, POV, Tommy, dave and the rest they all have stopped responding.

I love it.

I know they will say that I'm not worth their precious time (elitist punks never have time for the common man) but to me, it just re-affirms that they cannot handle anything other than a wishy-washy liberal.

Fuck 'em.

I wipe my ass with more worthy opponents.

Don't flatter yourself - many of us have learned it is useless to argue with a fool.

Of course it's useless for you and your side... ya got NOTHIN' to counteract our facts. Just lies, obfuscation, and WAH WAH WAH 'woe is me' victim garbage.

Um, it's called "war funding", and he was against the war, and he had voted plenty of times to "fund the troops".

So, when McCain voted against a war funding bill, he hurt the troops as well, right?  Ask the DAV what they think of McCain's votes. 

Actually Obama voted 10 times to fund troops, and one time not too - this bill was also voted against by many republicans, and vetoed by the President.  Ofcourse there was no mention of the 10 times he voted for troop funding....... hmmm I wonder why not?  Cause it's biased commentary!

Or talked about how many times Obama did not even show up to Vote, how dare they leave that out also!!  Or how many times Obama voted present!! How dare they leave that out also, why would MM pick and chose what is put out!!! Wonder???

Mark,

How many times did Obama vote present in the U.S. Senate?  How does his attendance record in the U.S. Senate compare to McCain's?  Please only facts, no speculation here.

F-Boy I guess you do know that he does not have that option, sure he would try, but can do the following.  Fact!  Vote Key
Y
N
NV
PY
PN
Yea
Nay
Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present
Pair Yea
Pair Nay
he can only pick from the key of choices.

And my other question?

I can help w/ the other question!

Linky:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

Of course we love our country roundy.....thats why we are so upset with Obama for voting to cut funding to troops already fighting in a war, and for his refusal to admit that the surge has been successful.

So you're upset with him for something he never did and for refusing to lie?

How Republican-troll-like of you.

I'll admit that the "Surge" was successful after you admit that invading Iraq was the most boneheaded foreign policy blunder of the past 30 years.

"The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”" (foxnews.com).

Your turn Nerzy.

Remember when the Neo-con artists were all against troop escalation back in the day? I guess calling it a "surge" changed that policy.

Only the last 30 years?

“Of course we love our country roundy.....”

Are you sure that "we" includes Mr. and Mrs. Palin:

The founder of the Alaska Independence Party -- a group that has been courted over the years by Sarah Palin, and one her husband was a member of for roughly seven years -- once professed his "hatred for the American government" and cursed the American flag as a "damn flag."

POV:

Your actions declare that YOU do not love our country.  You deny that the surge FAILED at its goal of improving Iraqi political autonomy.  You deny that Bush lied us into war.  You deny that Bush has caused the US economy untold damage.  You lie about Obama's voting record.  When faced with the fact that the Bush administration has not supplied troops with the equipment they need, you ignore it.  The Republicans voted down veterans' benefits and you ignore it.  You ignore the Attorney General's office being used for political purposes.  You disregard facts that you do not like.  You are a hypocrite of the first order. 

Great; another war-cheerleading armchair general pontificating about the all-powerful surge.  When you do this, you're committing the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc - loosely translated as being f---ing stupid.  Put down that magazine and zip up - there's lots of polysyllabic words in the next paragraph.

According to William S. Lind of the Center for Cultural Conservatism (and the reality-based community, of which you are evidently not a part) the reduction in violence in Iraq has four causes, the least of which is the surge.  In order of importance, they are:

"Al Qaeda’s alienation of much of its Sunni base, a consequence of its attempt to impose its Puritanical version of Islam before it won the war and consolidated power.  This is a common error of revolutionary movements.  The smart ones back off and take a “broad front” strategy until the war is won, at which point they cut their “moderate” allies’ throats.  Al Qaeda’s non-hierarchical structure, coupled with the message it employs to recruit, may prevent it from adopting a broad front strategy.  If so, that may prove a fatal weakness.

A change in policy by the U.S. Marines in Anbar Province whereby they stopped attacking the Sunni population and started paying it instead.  As the FMFM 1-A argues, in 4GW, cash is your most important supporting arm.  The Marines’ new policy, which has now spread to the U.S. Army and beyond Anbar, enabled the locals to turn on al Qaeda and its brutally enforced Puritanism.

General Petraeus’s decision to move U.S. troops off their FOB’s and into populated areas where they could protect the population instead of merely protecting themselves.

Last and least, the surge, which made more troops available for #3.  Absent the other three developments, the surge would have achieved nothing."

Seeing as how GOP membership evidently confers omniscience in all things military and geopolitical, why don't you surprise me and answer with actual analysis instead of the RNC's talking points?  Looking forward to trashing your response.

I find no fault with the causes you mentioned, but I think it omitted some significant factors. There was the mass emigration of 2 million Iraqis to other countries. Most of them moved from areas of very intense violence or from areas in which they were the minority population. A smaller population clearly reduces the likelihood of conflict without having received any benefit from "THE SURGE."

A great many areas that had mixed populations have seen their minority populations driven out, reducing the potential for sectarian violence. Again, without "THE SURGE."

And I would like to comment on your second item.  You described it diplomatically, but what it boils down to is that the US started bribing Iraqi militants to not attack us.  I don't know why WPE Bush hasn't been criticized for this humiliating policy.  Whatever happened to Jefferson's "Millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute" pledge?

thats why we are so upset with Obama for voting to cut funding to troops already fighting in a war...

Therein lies the difference.  Obama wants to stop funding wars and start funding the vets.  Repugs want to keep funding wars and stop funding vets.  Now who's un-American?

 

Are you not upset at McCain for the cutting of funding for wounded troops? Or do wounded troops not count?

Um, POV, Barack actually did say that the surge quelled violence but that it hasn't succeeded in the overall strategy of political stability.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550764/

What's more pathetic?

Passing laws? 

Or having to lie about your opponent because you can't win on the truth? 

What's more pathetic?

Passing laws? 

Or having to lie about your opponent because you can't win on the truth?

 

Making your opponent the issue. Once the election is over your opponent is a non-factor. Things like abortion, WOT, oil, national security will still be an issue and a factor.

Well put, Dawuss.

That was one of the common themes of the RNC last night. #1 Bash Barack. 2# 1UP Sarah Palin 3# DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!

 

 

#1 and #2 (and it's subthemes) almost made me wanna' play Maximum-Football instead.

Making your opponent the issue. Once the election is over your opponent is a non-factor. Things like abortion, WOT, oil, national security will still be an issue and a factor.

Since the election is contrasting how you will deal with those issues compared to how your opponent will, an election is always about your opponent.  You opponent must be defeated.

And your opponent is the truth.

That's why you'll be a loser for a long time to come.

The TRUTH of what exactly? Any examples? 

How about the truth of where St. Barack will get the money for the $500 billion in new entitlement spending?  He provides no math for that plan.

How about the truth about what his plans are for Iraq? He's had about adozen different positions.

 

Your answer to both questions is the same.  Barack Obama will end the misguided, mishandled, and misfocused war in Iraq.  That will save American taxpayers $500 billion, easy.

The $200-300b or so per year we've been spending has been the big percentage for the deficits and by definition has been BORROWED.  It's essentially off-budget.  No war = no spending so that money is not there for social engineering.  He'd have to raise that money with new taxes or continue to have the Feds print the money.  On the tax side, hiking them on the rich -- those who make $250k -- doesn't come close to paying the boll.  So where does he get the money?  No one in the supposedly "Conservative" media has pressed him for an answer. 

Oh, I get it...  so 'borrowed' money doesn't really belong in the 'actual' budget.

That's the philosophy I use for my own finances, as well.  I just can't seem to figure out why VISA and Mastercard got so upset when I explained why I haven't been paying my CC bills.  Those companies are so un-patriotic.

Oh, I get it...  so 'borrowed' money doesn't really belong in the 'actual' budget.

Ah..no..you dont get it.  Like the rest of your left-wing buddies.

The point is you have three choices after the war ends and the money is no longer needed in order to pay for Obama's new spending which outpaces the war annually.

1. Cut existing programs
2. Raise taxes (AND I mean beyond just for those making $250k a year)
3. Print money and drive up the deficit.

The money isn't "just there."  And just because you and the rest of the moronic liberals say it's there doesn't mean it is.

The money was there when bush took office. Now we are deeply doo doo deep in the hole.  I for one like  politicians that tell us we are broke and that its time to roll up all of our sleaves and dig ourselves out..  Unfortunately the republicans and their rush hannities have sent out the message for years that sacrifice is a liberal thing.  That all we have to do is cut taxes and every day can be christmas. 

No one gets elected telling the us that we have to sacrifice and work together to solve difficult problems.  Conservative media have taught us that all our problems come from interfearing with the markets, which exist to give us whatever we want, when we want.

The money was there, but the Stock Market had started turning bullish before the 2000 election, something like 9/11 put a big dent in the economy, the Senior Drug Aid program was an unfunded liability, and other reckless spending helped eliminate those "surplus" dollars.  Sure, we need to work together to get out of it, but working together not only means raising taxes (on the top 50% of tax filers), but also cut unnecessary spending (or at least slowing the growth of government programs). Fund government programs at 1-2% points below inflation rates rather than 5+% points higher and it wouldn't take long for the budget to balance and the debt to start shrinking. When revenue to the government double every 8-10 years (no matter tax rates) and spending doubles every 6-8 years, one should be able to see that our way of life under this type of plan is unsustainable.

Uh, NOLEFTTURNS, pick up your phone, Honey. Karl's on the line.

Not to mention what printing more money would do to the econonmy....<sarcasmm on> what a genius this guy is <sarcasm off>

The point is, if you can fund a war off budget, why not spend the money for something useful that builds and not destroys.

 

Or were you one of the first people to protest the spending on the war when it started?

 Otherwise your argument is weak.

How about the "truth" of Palin being against earmark spending? 

She is against earmark spending!!!  That is, she is against earmarks that benefit others.

Also nothing is said how Alaska is the biggest welfare state in the nation. Money pours in courtesy of the rest of us taxpayers.

Your Welcome,

 

Alaska 

How much of the land in Alaska is owned by the Federal government? One could say Federal $ for Alaska are merely rent payments, but when that money goes to a low priority item, it could be rightfully called an "earmark".

It'll be a hell of a lot easier for a president to come up with money for programs than it will for a president to come up with enough troops to keep this quagmire going much longer without a draft.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has NEVER bashed an opponent in any of his campaigns. IIRC he doesn't even mention his opponent in any of his ads.

 

So yes, it IS possible to not make your opponent the issue.

Only if you have something to offer.

nuff said

"An election is always about your opponent..."

Not this time pal.

This election is about the issues.

Once the personal attacks are ignored, voters are going to look at their pocketbooks, their investments, the cost of educating their children and the value of the homes they've worked their whole lives for. They'll also wonder why this war is still raging.

You and Jeff Christie and the other cheerleaders can squawk all you want but in the end it will be about the economy and how to end this god forsaken war.

it is not a personal attack to explain to voters how your opponent will govern based on his previous record. That's called campaigning and when libs complain about the practice it's called WHINING

And what the hell do you call it when the Right bitches and moans about the media doing its job... yeah, apparently the job McCain's camp DIDN'T do... digging into Sarah Palin's past and scandals? Righteous selective outrage?

LOL...

McCain is the Republican Party's nominee for the presidency.

Voters know who held the power for the last eight years. Voters know who unilaterally decided to invade a country that was no threat to our national security. Voters know whose economic policies have either helped them or hurt them for the last eight years.

You can get St. Rudy to scream 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 from the rooftops, this time few will fall for it. The voters aren't afraid anymore, believe me.

Almost half of us never were.

Some food for thought..

 

We lost in 2004, barely because

George Bush was an incumbant

Bush was CIC of a war that had high approval ratings

Kerrey didn't fight back

No Huffington Post 

Air America was too new

Ed Schulz and Stephanie Miller were virtual unknowns

YouTube didn't exist

Blacks were not energized by the choices then

Obama is no Dukakis, Kerrey or even Gore and that's a good thing.

 

After reading your comment and listening to McCain's RNC acceptance speech, I couldn't agree with you more.

Barack and Biden will get the job done.

It IS a personal attack when you LIE about your opponents record.

While I won't deny that Palin's speech only "appeared" to have sharp wit, to say that he has not sponsored one single bit of legislation is totally false and disproven by this MMFA article. In the short time as a politician he has sponsored plenty of things. I saw on the Colbert Report that Joe Lieberman has video footage of him praising Obama, and now Bush and McCain have praised Obama in the past.

to say that he has not sponsored one single bit of legislation is totally false and disproven by this MMFA article

She didn't say that. Reread her quote.  The examples MM cite are not MAJOR legislation or reform - at least not in her (or my) opinion.  I think her point is valid - Obama has nothing to run on except a promise.

Hey Dummy - glad you're here. Got one for ya. Let's see what you have in that skull of yours...

Please explain to us Karl Rove's positions of why Governor Timothy Kaine isn't qualified to be VP based on his experience and why Governor Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP based on her experience. Thanks.

Yo Moron - If I have to answer that question for you you have no place on a political discussion thread.

Oooooo....  Nice comeback.

I hope everyone here takes note of that, and learns something from it.

I think we already knew.....

With all due respect, you're dodging his question

With all due respect I will not continue a discussion with one who starts off his post with name calling.  I provided my input to the question in a response below to Neon - something

That's nice. Go ahead and pick up your balls and jacks and head on home. Hey, why not? That's what McInsane has done in regards to the media. Awww...

I expected that one. Typical wingnut dodge. Obviously, your masters have taught you well - too bad it's gonna fail out there in the real America... away from the cocoon of that debacle of a convention.

Good luck with it cuz god knows you're gonna need it. Seriously.

In other words..... not even wingnuts can defend the indefensible.

No - i