GatewayRedbirds.com

clement wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:I don't understand the flap over the secessionist thing. First, if Alaskans want to secede, so what? Second, what's the political reality in Alaska? The facts are she ran as a Republican, governed that way (making no legislation or effort toward independence as far as I know) and she accepted the chance to be Vice President in a national election.

To me this is like punishing Obama for the words and actions of his associates. My parents both seem to think he has some hidden agenda, but there's nothing to support this in his actions or words.

As far as her husband goes, James Carville is married to Mary Matalin while Arnold Schwarzenegger is married to Maria Shriver. It doesn't matter.

Of course these things don't matter. It's all just politics. And I agree with you... If Alaska wants to secede, let them secede. But it's obviously an issue worth considering when you elect someone president of the US. Now I'm not sure Palin supports or supported secession, but it's a question that is worth asking her and hearing her explain. Of course you can't hear her answer if she won't take questions. And naturally when people start trying to raise eyebrows about associations with Rev Wright, Rezko, and Ayers, the tit-for-tat response will happen. And for whatever reason, husbands and wives have always been a part of our political vetting process.

I guess I want to see something along the lines of "I'm Sarah Palin and I want to secede" before I get concerned about it.

ghostrunner wrote:I guess I want to see something along the lines of "I'm Sarah Palin and I want to secede" before I get concerned about it.

Yeah, sort of like needing to hear Obama say "I'm Barack Obama and I'm a terrorist and I hate America".

clement wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:I guess I want to see something along the lines of "I'm Sarah Palin and I want to secede" before I get concerned about it.

Yeah, sort of like needing to hear Obama say "I'm Barack Obama and I'm a terrorist and I hate America".

Right.

Seriously, my Dad has brought up Wright and Ayers both. So I ask him, "what has Obama said or done that leads you to believe he has some nefarious plan. He's been a state senator and then a US Senator. What has he said or done that resembles those people's words?" No answer.

There is a reason why Alaska became a state in the first place, and why they would want to break off again.

I will give you a hint. It rhymes with soil, boil, coil, and Doyle.

Popeye_Card wrote:There is a reason why Alaska became a state in the first place, and why they would want to break off again.

I will give you a hint. It rhymes with soil, boil, coil, and Doyle.

Moil? OMG, she's Jewish.

Leroy wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:There is a reason why Alaska became a state in the first place, and why they would want to break off again.

I will give you a hint. It rhymes with soil, boil, coil, and Doyle.

Moil? OMG, she's Jewish.

ghostrunner wrote:I don't understand the flap over the secessionist thing. First, if Alaskans want to secede, so what? Second, what's the political reality in Alaska? The facts are she ran as a Republican, governed that way (making no legislation or effort toward independence as far as I know) and she accepted the chance to be Vice President in a national election.

To me this is like punishing Obama for the words and actions of his associates. My parents both seem to think he has some hidden agenda, but there's nothing to support this in his actions or words.

As far as her husband goes, James Carville is married to Mary Matalin while Arnold Schwarzenegger is married to Maria Shriver. It doesn't matter.

But why defend her? If everyone was playing clean and then all of the sudden Obama attempted to make an issue of it, sure, then you should point it out. But Obama hasn't said anything about it. On the other hand, she's out there attempting to frighten voters by pointing out "associations" of his that should make voters wary. She should be able to say things about him? Am I safe in assuming you don't think she should?

Richie Allen wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:I don't understand the flap over the secessionist thing. First, if Alaskans want to secede, so what? Second, what's the political reality in Alaska? The facts are she ran as a Republican, governed that way (making no legislation or effort toward independence as far as I know) and she accepted the chance to be Vice President in a national election.

To me this is like punishing Obama for the words and actions of his associates. My parents both seem to think he has some hidden agenda, but there's nothing to support this in his actions or words.

As far as her husband goes, James Carville is married to Mary Matalin while Arnold Schwarzenegger is married to Maria Shriver. It doesn't matter.

But why defend her? If everyone was playing clean and then all of the sudden Obama attempted to make an issue of it, sure, then you should point it out. But Obama hasn't said anything about it. On the other hand, she's out there attempting to frighten voters by pointing out "associations" of his that should make voters wary. She should be able to say things about him? Am I safe in assuming you don't think she should?

What she says about Obama has nothing to do with the fairness or relevance of this secessionist story. I've defended Obama previously with respect to Reverend Wright, and I'm doing the same here. In neither case have I heard Obama or Palin say anything that suggests they agree with the people they're being linked with.

Are some people really this gullible/paranoid? I wanted to make a new thread for this, but figured it would better fit into this thread.

So, I watched the debate last night with my roomate's uber-conservative gf. And, this is her explanation of the crisis right now:

"Barnie Frank w/ acorn strongarmed banks into giving out bad loans mostly to minorities as well as campaign contributions to democrats. If they didn't, hell would be raised about the banks being racist/horrible companies and hurt their business. So, these banks obliged and gave out as many "bad loans" as they could. Then, when they simply couldn't do anymore, he went to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (because they're democratically owned, of course) and got them to loosen lending practices so they could give out more bad loans. When they did this, it opened the door for all people to get bad loans and hence the problem. The Republicans simply didn't push hard enough to tighten lending practices b/c it went against their "de-regulation" policy, so it was okay. They should have done more, but weren't expecting this to become such a problem and didn't want the firestorm of racism to come up in their faces if they didn't block Fannie and Freddie from doing what they did.

Further, Fannie and Freddie knew they were in trouble long ago. But, because they were liberals, they waited until the election period to come along knowing this would all be blamed on George W. and give the republican an uphill battle which it has. And, that is why we're in this problem. Political gain for democrats and democrat screw ups."

I gave this about two seconds thought and dismissed it as hogwash political spin because it really didn't jive. We all know Republicans were pushing for de-regulation even while this was going on...or so it seemed. I had all but forgotten it when McCain brought up that Obama is the largest or 2nd largest recipient of campaign funds from Fannie and Freddie. Is this true? If so, how much money was it (ie, was it the 2300/person allowed or was it more than that). I really don't know much about it and was wondering if you all had heard anything of it. I don't buy it, but donating money to a campaign/person by businesses usually implies there's something in it for the business is the only reason I ask.

Barney Frank et al are not in any way free of culpability in this mess. There's little doubt that ACORN and the left lobbied and pushed for too loose of restrictions on loans, going by the mantra that home ownership is a right. In the most basic human way they are right, ie hut, shanty, cave, castle being homes. Under our system, not so much.