fair by whose standards?

Not fair by my standards.  Who is making the rules about fair and unfair?

• pig uproar - possumposse
  • If you are referring to Bush, he is not in this race - Also, what have the Dems in Congress done? nm
    • his policies are most - justduckyhere
      • 90% yes, but most of the votes were unanimous, so - it is not a fair argument anyway. nm
        • fair by whose standards? - justduckyhere
    • O says something he shouldnt have, then tries to - blame his troubles on the other side.figures.nm
      • Bama ain't got no troubles - justduckyhere

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

balanced . . . we're looking out for YOU . . . we're looking out for the FOLKs . . . fair and balanced . . .

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

There’s no doubt the Charles Gibson interviews showed extreme prejudice against Palin and extreme favoritism towards Obama…He constantly questioned her ability to lead but never questioned Obama’s ability to lead, all the more amazing considering that Palin was the only one with executive experience and the presidency is the highest level executive job in politics.
There's much more at The Anchoress, so head over there to see the full report.

Palin is currently paying back her state for misappropriated funds, Sanford is going to have to pay back money for his Argentina trip, and Ensign used pub party money to pay off his mistress et al, and you're worried about a party at the White House? 

I think I would much rather pay for an event that not only collects money for charities but also provides a pick-me-up for those invited (congress and the media) than I would for yet another republican sordid affair.

*when has government ever solved a problem.*

*They actually believe that is their government's job, to make all their laws and tell them how to live.*

How about remembering that you said this when it comes to abortion and same sex marriage.

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail

The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

By Bill Sammon

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville’s orders, never reporting his or Greenberg’s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party’s top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

Thank you for responding in a respectful manner.

For the record, I felt Kfir's remarks to me were offensive first, and that's why my remarks became nastier.  In fact, the remark about Kfir not being representative of most Israelis was in direct response and in the same tone to Kfir's post to me regarding being representative of liberals.

And I don't believe my take on the end times is a fact.  It's nothing more than my personal opinion, based on things I read that lead me to feel that way and raise the questions I raised.

I do agree that these issues are very emotionally charged and respect your decision to not discuss them further.  Again, thank you for being respectful.

I would be 100% fine with my taxes being raised 3% if it meant healthcare for all American children.  Heck, I would be overjoyed with that!  So if that bill ever comes up I guarantee you I will support it, but the fact is the current bill is a solution that could help families right now, and I support it.  I would support just about any bill that would help lower health insurance costs to American families, honestly.  I just truly think this one is great because it is aimed at covering minors.  I also think it is great that Republican and Democratic leaders tried to work together and compromise on it and decided to tax cigarettes instead of raising taxes in other areas.

So yes, I would rather have a hike in taxes and have more affordable healthcare for kids.  Is that the best solution for lower health care costs for adult Americans?  Maybe not, but for the minors with no choice in what kind of family they are born into I think it is a great choice.

Here's what Alaska has to say about it.

http://www.ktva.com/ci_11255829

You can also find this story on Fox, AOL news, and a number of publications.  From what I gather, Palin's spokesperson has said she won't accept the raise or will donate it.  That really doesn't sound right to me, espcially since not only did she have a hand in selecting the committee that decided to give out the raises, but the committee was actually formed in order to evaluate whether raises were needed. 

Why do I care about this?  My guess is that we will see her again, so I think it's important to keep up with what she's doing in the meantime.  I don't believe in that *out of sight, out of mind* thing.

what it does do is put money in the hands of people who have to spend it.  If they were to just give money to the middle class, most of us would simply save it or pay off bills.  That doesn't stimulate the economy.  The spending deficit is the main problem with the economy, and that's what they are addressing with this.  It's the same theory behind food stamps.  Statistically, the poorer the people that receive the money, the more likely it will be spent -- and that's the goal -- to get people to spend money.

Really, if you look at the tax cuts that we are supposed to get that come to what, I think someone said about $13 a week, you will see the same concept.  When Bush sent out those rebate checks, the idea, again, was to get people spending money.  Well, they didn't.  They paid bills and saved -- so we know that doesn't work.  However, if you are just getting an extra $13 a week, most people will just see that as an extra $13 for something else they will buy.  They will be less likely to save that $13 than they would a lump sum like the ones Bush sent out.

what it does do is put money in the hands of people who have to spend it.  If they were to just give money to the middle class, most of us would simply save it or pay off bills.  That doesn't stimulate the economy.  The spending deficit is the main problem with the economy, and that's what they are addressing with this.  It's the same theory behind food stamps.  Statistically, the poorer the people that receive the money, the more likely it will be spent -- and that's the goal -- to get people to spend money.

Really, if you look at the tax cuts that the middle class are supposed to get, they come to what, I think someone said about $13 a week, you will see the same concept.  When Bush sent out those rebate checks, the idea, again, was to get people spending money.  Well, they didn't.  They paid bills and saved -- so we know that doesn't work.  However, if you are just getting an extra $13 a week, most people will just see that as an extra $13 for something else they will buy.  They will be less likely to save that $13 than they would a lump sum like the ones Bush sent out.  That means the likelihood of the money being spent is greater.

what it does do is put money in the hands of people who have to spend it.  If they were to just give money to the middle class, most of us would simply save it or pay off bills.  That doesn't stimulate the economy.  The spending deficit is the main problem with the economy, and that's what they are addressing with this.  It's the same theory behind food stamps.  Statistically, the poorer the people that receive the money, the more likely it will be spent -- and that's the goal -- to get people to spend money.

Really, if you look at the tax cuts that the middle class are supposed to get, they come to what, I think someone said about $13 a week, you will see the same concept.  When Bush sent out those rebate checks, the idea, again, was to get people spending money.  Well, they didn't.  They paid bills and saved -- so we know that doesn't work.  However, if you are just getting an extra $13 a week, most people will just see that as an extra $13 for something else they will buy.  They will be less likely to save that $13 than they would a lump sum like the ones Bush sent out.  That means the likelihood of the money being spent is greater.

The subject of abortion is just going way too far left here.  If someone doesn't approve of abortions, they should not be forced to do them.  If a mother has the right to abort her baby, a doctor should have a right to refuse to perform such a thing.  That mother will just have to go to someone else.  But to take the rights away from either the mother or the doctor......that isn't right.  If you want the government to stay out of your uterus, then don't take free will away from someone who doesn't believe in it by making them perform such an act.  Think about it.  When you look at it from both sides, the extreme left and the extreme right are both wanting unfair things. 

I mean....there are the major kool-aid drinkers who refuse to see anything bad about obama no matter what the man does, but that really goes on both sides.  Some pubs are just as bad about that.  I think that Obama ran a great campaign with promises that people really wanted to believe.  However, now some of those Obama supporters are sweating it too.  It is now only the democratic kool-aid drinkers that continue to praise him. 

They don't need to run that ad.  Sean Hannity repeats his mantra of Rev. Wright and Ayers every evening.  He does not seem to have much respect for his viewers.  He just repeats those 2 things over and over like the viewers are dumb stumps.

My Fair Veep

WASILLA, Alaska

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the Arctic plain ...

I hope John McCain doesn’t throw his slippers at Sarah Palin’s head or get as acerbic as Henry Higgins did with Eliza Doolittle when she did not learn quickly enough. McCain’s Pygmalion has to be careful, because his Galatea might be armed with more than a sharp tongue.

For the first time in American history, we have a “My Fair Lady” moment, as teams of experts bustle around the most famous woman in politics, intensely coaching her for her big moment at the ball — her first unscripted interview here this week with ABC News’s Charlie Gibson.

Eliza, by George, got it and brought off the coup of passing herself off as a Hungarian princess rather than a Covent Garden flower seller. Sarah’s challenge is far tougher, and that’s why she’s pulling the political equivalent of an all-nighter. She doesn’t have to pass herself off as a different class or change her voice or be more highfalutin. The McCain campaign is reveling in its anti-intellectual tenor.

Sarah, who is now so renowned that she is known merely by one name and has a name ID of 90 percent, has to be a Kmart mom who appeals to Kmart moms and dads. She’s already shown that she can shoot the pig, put lipstick on it, bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan. Now all she has to do is also prove that she can be the leader of the free world on a moment’s notice, and field dress Putin as adeptly as she can a moose.

After devilishly mocking Obama — and successfully getting into his head — with ads about how he was just a frothy celebrity, like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, it turns out all the McCain camp wanted was an Obama of its own. Now that they have the electric Palin, they’ve stopped arguing that celebrity is bad. All they do is worship at her cult of celebrity. As Rick Davis, a top McCain adviser, said: “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

Wasilla will be crawling with four groups — ABC staffers, frantically getting ready for the big showdown; McCain staffers, frantically tutoring Palin for the big showdown; McCain vetters, who are belatedly doing their job checking to see if Palin is a qualified White House contender and doing their best to shut down Troopergate and assembling a “truth squad” posse of Palinistas to rebut any criticism and push back any prying reporters; and journalists — from Sydney to Washington — who are here to draw back the curtain on the shiny reformer image that the McCain camp has conjured for their political ingénue and see what’s behind it.

Gibson has his work cut out for him. His problem isn’t coming up with a list of questions, but finding time to drill deeply enough into all the unknown territory of her life. It’s a task that dwarfs the drilling job the oil companies are doing on Alaska’s North Slope.

In the end, none of it may matter, since Palin has rocketed in the polls, drawing women and men with her vapid — if vivacious and visceral — scripted cheerleading. But if you’re reading this, Charlie, we want to know everything, including:

What kind of budget-cutter makes a show of getting rid of the state plane, then turns around and bills taxpayers for the travel of her husband and kids between Juneau and Wasilla and sticks the state with a per-diem tab to stay in her own home?

Why was Sarah for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, and why was she for earmarks before she was against them? And doesn’t all this make her just as big a flip-flopper as John Kerry?

What kind of fiscal conservative raises taxes and increases budgets in both her jobs — as mayor and as governor?

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., will she call the Wasilla Assembly of God congregation and ask them to pray on a response, as she asked them to pray for a natural gas pipeline?

Does she really think Adam, Eve, Satan and the dinosaurs mingled on the earth 5,000 years ago?

Why put out a press release about her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and then spend the next few days attacking the press for covering that press release?

As Troopergate unfolds here — an inquiry into whether Palin inappropriately fired the commissioner of public safety for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law — it raises this question: Who else is on her enemies list and what might she do with the F.B.I.?

Does she want a federal ban on trans fat in restaurants and a ban on abortion and Harry Potter? And which books exactly would have landed on the literature bonfire if she had had her way with that Wasilla librarian?

Just how is it that Fannie and Freddie have cost taxpayers money (since they haven’t yet)?

Does she talk in tongues or just eat caribou tongues?

I disagree - it is well known that they are extremely right-slanted.  Fair and balanced.  What a joke.  Why do you think people in the know refer to them as Faux or Fixed news - just a coincidence? 

Chris Wallace's vicious sucker-punch attack on Bill Clinton (wherin Wallace got his rear end handed to him on a platter).