meteamo Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I read that Palin has said she will not pursue that Senate position if Stevens gets booted out. However, I think that'd be pretty interesting to have John McCain and her working together...unless of course there really is a dispute between them like the media and some McCain aides have been reporting. Thanks for the info Pirates. That's one way to keep herself in the spotlight or at least to have a federal government job for a while ... that is if she wants to do that. There are term limits on being governor but I'm not sure about Senator ... as I recall some Senators holding their job for a long time. Being a Senator is better than that of Governor, Vice President or President. And the healthcare isn't bad either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesmvp04 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Thanks for the info Pirates. That's one way to keep herself in the spotlight or at least to have a federal government job for a while ... that is if she wants to do that. There are term limits on being governor but I'm not sure about Senator ... as I recall some Senators holding their job for a long time. Being a Senator is better than that of Governor, Vice President or President. And the healthcare isn't bad either. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbprogjoe Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 ??? It works for Europeans AstroEric, not in the United States of America. We live in the U.S., unless you're geographically challenged. Plus, I was predominantly talking about socialism not working here, and even in Europe it works on a limited basis. However, as a lesson point in history, look at the socialism that Stalin, Franco, and Hitler introduced (to certain differing degrees), and the failure that those turned out to be. I'm NOT saying Obama or the Democratic (liberal) majority in both houses are going to divet us to that level or be those types of leaders, but socialism (in any form) is bad for this nation. And consequently, it has never really worked in this nation. Sincerely, --- vbprogjoe (Joe W.) :? :?: :shrug: :attention: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbprogjoe Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Could it be the reason he hates Europe so much is because it contains many of the countries that are truly "freer" than we are in America? Or is just because he's xenophobic and ignorant? Interesting, I'd call your stance Addison to be ignorant. If they were truly "freer" (if that is a word) than us, they wouldn't have to comment and be overly concerned about our elections. As for being xenophobic, I'm all for being diverse and taking some constructive opinions from Europeans, but let us not be led to the ultimate loss of identity and character as Americans, acting like a foreign country or acting European. That is not why we fought for our independence from British rule, as if we didn't fight we'd have the type of society it seems you really want. Just my opinion of your response. Sincerely, --- vbprogjoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbprogjoe Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 She can't do any worse than Obama really, actually she would surpass him the first day she was in the Senate. I think she is an outstanding political mind, person in general, and has more intellect and brilliance in her pinkie than Obama and his wife have combined! Sincerely, --- vbprogjoe (Joe W.) :arrow: :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Could it be the reason he hates Europe so much is because it contains many of the countries that are truly "freer" than we are in America? Or is just because he's xenophobic and ignorant? If they were truly "freer" (if that is a word) Turn off the Fox News and pick up a dictionary... If they were truly "freer" (if that is a word) than us, they wouldn't have to comment and be overly concerned about our elections. So if you're refuting the assertion that a lot of European countries are not actually more "free" than the United States, care to provide some details in your counter argument? Or is sidestepping the comment more in tune with your style? Just for starters; lower crime rates, lower instances of government wiretaps on citizens, higher amount spent on education, higher amount of educated citizens, comparable freedom of speech, just to name a few. So unless you think standing in line barefoot at airport security makes us more "free" than other countries, join the rest of the world in understanding that "freedom" and "liberty" are nothing more than buzzwords which, despite what Fox News would say, don't exclusively define the United States of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidthecornman Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Bush is one of the greatest presidents ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted November 18, 2008 Author Share Posted November 18, 2008 Turn off the Fox News and pick up a dictionary... So if you're refuting the assertion that a lot of European countries are not actually more "free" than the United States, care to provide some details in your counter argument? Or is sidestepping the comment more in tune with your style? Just for starters; lower crime rates, lower instances of government wiretaps on citizens, higher amount spent on education, higher amount of educated citizens, comparable freedom of speech, just to name a few. So unless you think standing in line barefoot at airport security makes us more "free" than other countries, join the rest of the world in understanding that "freedom" and "liberty" are nothing more than buzzwords which, despite what Fox News would say, don't exclusively define the United States of America. Remember, this is the Republican thread, so (within reason) they're able to say whatever they want. If you want a proper argument, I would highly recommend the debate thread, cool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonClark Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Remember, this is the Republican thread, so (within reason) they're able to say whatever they want. If you want a proper argument, I would highly recommend the debate thread, cool? Dammit! I did it again. I'm really having a hard time distinguishing between all these threads, they're completely running together in my head. My bad, feel free to delete anything you need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanksrcool05 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I believe Obama won only because of Bush and the economy, not because of any of his very few accomplishments. I just don't see what is so appealing about him and his policies. 1. He doesn't know how to deal with notorious leaders. Obama thinks he can just talk to #!$@!#$ like Amacffdysacdsfgbjhdinejaed, and he'll listen and we'll all live happily ever after. I hope one day Obama realizes that these pieces of #### won't be happy until Israel is destroyed. He also believes in a world with no nuclear weapons, which would involve asking Putin's puppet if he could destroy his nuclear weapon supply 2. He was the most radical liberal of the Senate. Obama rarely, if ever, took the side of his opposing party in the senate. He has the MOST liberal voting record. He's also accidentally blurted out his gol of redistributing wealth to Joe the Plumber. Where did he get this idea from, was it Frank Davis, Karl Marx, or anyone of Europe's leaders perhaps? By the way, Socialist Europe is a FAILED society! How do you think socialist NAZI Germany fared or the united Soviet Union republic? 3. TAXES TAXES TAXES! Guideline number one is that you don't raise taxes in a slumping economy. And PUHLEAZE don't believe that $250,000 and below tax cut B.S. He'll be back at $42,500 in no time. Do you think it is fair if you have a brain surgeon who makes $300,000 a year who has to give a substantial amount of his hard-earned money to a lazy slob who just asks the governmnet for money and immediately spends it on an HD TV? And the free healthcare system is not really free. You are really just paying for it in your taxes, which is what liberalism is, you give us your money and if you work hard, we'll give you back some handouts. Israel It's not really encoaraging when he surrounds himself with Anti-Semites like Reverend Wright and Farrahkan, Jimmy Carter, Rashid Khalidi as well as Tony McPeak, who made comments that should have disgusted any Jew such as I. Do pro-Israelis get endorsed by Hamas (or Kim Jong-Il, Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez for that matter) I still can't believe 78% of Jews voted for him. Sorry for my rant. I just needed to let out some steam. Well, at least Dems don't get the filibuster in the Senate. AND NO AL %^&$ FRANKEN! Long live capitalism! We could win the fight against European Socialism! Hard to believe I used to be a liberal, but when you were raised in a liberal (now conservative fortunately) household, with teachers at school who only give one side of the story, it's hard to break free. Hey Davis Horowitz used to be a Commie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesmvp04 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Yeah, I also think Obama won becuase McCain hid Palin from the public and let the media formulate all their $150,000 wardrobe crap. If McCain had let Palin speak out more and give her side of the story more, the public would not have been as negative towards her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Yeah, I also think Obama won becuase McCain hid Palin from the public and let the media formulate all their $150,000 wardrobe crap. If McCain had let Palin speak out more and give her side of the story more, the public would not have been as negative towards her. I'm not sure about that. Consider that the dirt about Palin surfaced rather quickly (and as expected). I think by the time Palin showed up on the scene it only crystallized where people were at already. She was quite a cundundrum (sp?) for the feminists, and feminist like libs, so Fem Dems had no choice but to nash and claw at her. On the conservative side, she was the neo-Frontier woman, injecting more life and fire power (pun sort of intended) into the party, countering Obama's youthful hip (hop) appeal. But she's definitely not done. I know the party is searching for an opponent for 4 years from now, but she may already be in our presence. She just might be our Margaret Thatcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesmvp04 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I'm not sure about that. Consider that the dirt about Palin surfaced rather quickly (and as expected). I think by the time Palin showed up on the scene it only crystallized where people were at already. She was quite a cundundrum (sp?) for the feminists, and feminist like libs, so Fem Dems had no choice but to nash and claw at her. On the conservative side, she was the neo-Frontier woman, injecting more life and fire power (pun sort of intended) into the party, countering Obama's youthful hip (hop) appeal. But she's definitely not done. I know the party is searching for an opponent for 4 years from now, but she may already be in our presence. She just might be our Margaret Thatcher. Yeah, but McCain could have handled that better. For example, he could have used Palin's daughter getting pregnant as an example to show how he and Palin do not support abortion. That would have gotten more Pro-Life Christian support. Also, he should have let Palin answer to the attacks against her more. The fact that most of what we heard about Palin was from the media and not from the McCain campaign was a huge error and thus contributed somewhat to the loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanksrcool05 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Yeah, but McCain could have handled that better. For example, he could have used Palin's daughter getting pregnant as an example to show how he and Palin do not support abortion. That would have gotten more Pro-Life Christian support. Also, he should have let Palin answer to the attacks against her more. The fact that most of what we heard about Palin was from the media and not from the McCain campaign was a huge error and thus contributed somewhat to the loss. Naaahh, I don't believe in exploiting family matters to win a campaign, like when Obama used his mother's death to support his universal healthcare. crap. In other news, someone who I thought was a good friend of Obama, Al-Zwahiri called Obama a bum. Even terrorists know this guys too high on himself and too soft on terror. Do you really think when Obama has a barbecue with jerks like Amachjgfkseuhihefgiuhijaed and asks them to stop being mean, that they are going to stop. He knows nothing at all about foreign policy except kissing these guys' #$%%. He's weak sissy. 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanksrcool05 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I'm not sure about that. Consider that the dirt about Palin surfaced rather quickly (and as expected). I think by the time Palin showed up on the scene it only crystallized where people were at already. She was quite a cundundrum (sp?) for the feminists, and feminist like libs, so Fem Dems had no choice but to nash and claw at her. On the conservative side, she was the neo-Frontier woman, injecting more life and fire power (pun sort of intended) into the party, countering Obama's youthful hip (hop) appeal. But she's definitely not done. I know the party is searching for an opponent for 4 years from now, but she may already be in our presence. She just might be our Margaret Thatcher. Also as "Tito the Builder" once said, Why do commies such as Olbermann and Matthews make such a big deal about Joe the Plumber not paying his taxes, thus diverting the questioning of Obama's European/Canadian tax policy? Why is Bridge to Nowhere, which most people only heard the liberal side of the story, more important than McPeak's comments of us horribly corrupt and mischevious Jews of the "Israeli Lobby" in the U.S. :roll: Or how about Obama's rave review of a book written by friend Bill Ayers, which happened to be dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan. I could make a whole list people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbprogjoe Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 To all the conservatives out there (and what the hey, Republicans too): are we still thinking the same thing we did after last year's Presidential election? That being, "What did we just end up voting ourselves into?" 11 months of Obama fawning over himself and his teleprompter, turning us into a socialist, elitist country, that seems afraid to confront evil. We have a HHS Secretary who has trouble understanding her job requirements; a Homeland Security Secretary (HSS) who is worse as HSS than Janet Reno was as AG; a AG who won't prosecute a valid and legitimate case against thugs who threaten people at polls & is going to ship five terrorists back to NYC to stand trial (and promote terrorist propaganda); and the "quietest" Secretary of State in recent history, maybe for GOOD reason. The funniest part of this past year, was watching Eric "I Dust Off My Shoulder" Holder being tongue-tied when Lindsey Graham asked him a question about previous prosecutions of enemies caught overseas in the United States, and I thought Holder was going to have an aneurysm. Oh, and Robert Gibbs' daily briefs in the press room, CLASSIC gems, I tell you... Sincerely, --- vbprogjoe (Joe W.) :help: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.