Palin ventures off into strange cookie land...

[mriddick]

So she hears PA is supposedly looking at ways to reduce sugar intake of foods sold on public school property, so Sarah decides this would make a good issue and brings dozens of cookies to a private school just to...well who really knows it doesn't make alot of sense (in order to “shake things up,"?)....but somehow she thought this was a good issue to bring up right now. The funny part is there is no offical push to get rid of sweets in school, she was going off a bad MSM report.

1. Once again she's showing her ability to get off message and dive into issues that just make her seem strange.
2. Listening to the MSM is not going to ever be a benefit to her, after 3 years you'd expect her to learn this by now.
3. Why is it her concern in the first place, doing something just because you can is a poor philosophy although it could explain some of her families own personal issues.
4. If I was a teacher in school I wouldn't want the kids jacked up on sugar. It's not really a nanny state as much as common sense.
5. It's the economy stupid. Hasn't the last election taught her keeping the subject on the economy is a winner, all her candidates that lost got side tracked into issues that really didn't matter.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44936.html

[crapshoot]

When she first came to the national political stage, I must confess that I was excited.

Now, she's just getting her nose into every cause and movement she can. She needs to go home and raise her kids.

[El Jefe]

And to think, this woman doesn't even hold a political office. But her enemies will bash her regardless, I hear more negative nonsense about Palin than I do Chuck U Schumer.

[O.S.O.K.]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/5163904661_9b3f2235ff_z.jpg

[AK_Apostle]

When she quite her Alaskan governorship gig she showed the world she aints got the right metal to be prez.

[El Jefe]

When she quite her Alaskan governorship gig she showed the world she aints got the right metal to be prez.

Um, I don't remember her announcing her candidacy.

[ubersoldate]

When she first came to the national political stage, I must confess that I was excited.

Now, she's just getting her nose into every cause and movement she can. She needs to go home and raise her kids.

Agreed.

[Mark Ducati]

I guess she needs money too:

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/sarah-palins-new-reality-show-said-be-apolitical-11-06-2010

She's got a reality TV show coming out called "Sarah Palin's Alaska".

[sevlex]

I guess she needs money too:

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/sarah-palins-new-reality-show-said-be-apolitical-11-06-2010

She's got a reality TV show coming out called "Sarah Palin's Alaska".

That, I believe, is her jump-the-shark moment.

[imanaknut]

Not going to say anything about Palin, but here in Indiana there was a movement to ban regular Pepsi, Coke, or any other soft drink that had sugar from being sold in school's vending machines. If they think Coke or Pepsi, or your favorite sugar filled beverage, causes children to be over weight, why not go after cookies?

Now to speak about Palin, Big Brother becoming Big Sister, or worse, Big Mother!

[old Grump]

We all thread drift, leap to conclusions on scanty information, we just don't do it as publicly as she does. Besides, who says she is wrong?

As far as resigning as governor the bubble heads were keeping her and her family tied up in knots, she couldn't concentrate on what she needed to do. I thought she was wrong for quitting, now I'm not so sure.

[Cypher]

And to think, this woman doesn't even hold a political office. But her enemies will bash her regardless, I hear more negative nonsense about Palin than I do Chuck U Schumer.

Amazing isn't it, makes you wonder what they are so afraid of.

[Kadmos]

She's an idiot.

We have a national obesity problem, diabetic kids, teachers who have to deal with kids on a massive sugar rush and she wants to pick on school boards who possibly want to do something about it.

Isn't that part of the reason we have school boards? To help determine what is good policy for our local schools? Is there any reason for her to interfere with this?

If this is a "parents should decide" issue, isn't one of the major ways they decide is to have an influence with their local school board?

This isn't a federal government mandate, this is a school board deciding what should be on the local menu, what should be in the vending machines and what are appropriate items to bring in as birthday treats to share with classmates.

Frankly I'm against all this sugar being so accessible in the schools, it takes AWAY from my ability to help manage my kids diet...there were no vending machines in the school I went to as a child, there was no soda served with lunch, we had water fountains if you were thirsty, and you could have juice or milk at lunch.

If I want my kid to have candy at school, then I should be the one sending candy with them!

Yes I'm fine with kids bringing in treats to the class on their birthday, but I think it's stupid to send a kid to school with lunch money expecting them to get a decent lunch when they can get a snickers bar, a bag of chips, and a coke instead.

[crapshoot]

She's an idiot.

We have a national obesity problem, diabetic kids, teachers who have to deal with kids on a massive sugar rush and she wants to pick on school boards who possibly want to do something about it.

Isn't that part of the reason we have school boards? To help determine what is good policy for our local schools? Is there any reason for her to interfere with this?

If this is a "parents should decide" issue, isn't one of the major ways they decide is to have an influence with their local school board?

This isn't a federal government mandate, this is a school board deciding what should be on the local menu, what should be in the vending machines and what are appropriate items to bring in as birthday treats to share with classmates.

Frankly I'm against all this sugar being so accessible in the schools, it takes AWAY from my ability to help manage my kids diet...there were no vending machines in the school I went to as a child, there was no soda served with lunch, we had water fountains if you were thirsty, and you could have juice or milk at lunch.

If I want my kid to have candy at school, then I should be the one sending candy with them!

Yes I'm fine with kids bringing in treats to the class on their birthday, but I think it's stupid to send a kid to school with lunch money expecting them to get a decent lunch when they can get a snickers bar, a bag of chips, and a coke instead.

Spoken like a true libtard.

While I'm tired of her getting her nose into everything that she can, there is no reason to insult her because you feel threatened by her.

[MOP]

Does that mean the Socialist Shithead C-in-C is doing such

a great job , to save America.

The whole commie press is against her,

and the Elitist Ruling Class, from both parties, are

against her...therefore, she must be doing something right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Palin 2012~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People who called her "dumb"....are sucking way too much commie dick.

[Kadmos]

Spoken like a true libtard.

While I'm tired of her getting her nose into everything that she can, there is no reason to insult her because you feel threatened by her.

Threatened? No.

Terrified? Yes.

To think a woman that completely out of touch with the ridiculous nature of what comes out of her own mouth actually has enough popular support to be considered as any sort of realistic candidate for the presidency is seriously frightening.

Frankly I wouldn't concern myself with her at all, except it has become fully apparent that my countrymen are so ignorant as to elect a polarizing figure such as Obama, that I am left with little doubt that given the correct set of circumstances they would repeat said idiocy to include votes for Palin is no longer outside the realm of imagination.

Mickey Mouse always gets a few votes in every election, frankly I never gave thought that he might win!

She is talking about an intrusion of "big government" from a local school board concerning the friggen lunch menu!

Selma Alabama this is not.

[El Jefe]

Threatened? No.

Terrified? Yes.

To think a woman that completely out of touch with the ridiculous nature of what comes out of her own mouth actually has enough popular support to be considered as any sort of realistic candidate for the presidency is seriously frightening.

Frankly I wouldn't concern myself with her at all, except it has become fully apparent that my countrymen are so ignorant as to elect a polarizing figure such as Obama, that I am left with little doubt that given the correct set of circumstances they would repeat said idiocy to include votes for Palin is no longer outside the realm of imagination.

Mickey Mouse always gets a few votes in every election, frankly I never gave thought that he might win!

She is talking about an intrusion of "big government" from a local school board concerning the friggen lunch menu!

Selma Alabama this is not.

Dude, you're a joke. These past few years you've worn yourself out carrying water for Barry and everything else liberal and now you bleat this?

Whatfuckinever.

[Kadmos]

Dude, you're a joke. These past few years you've worn yourself out carrying water for Barry and everything else liberal and now you bleat this?

Whatfuckinever.

Dude, I didn't vote for Obama. I don't care for him. But he is the president, I accept that without going into a lunicidal rage every time his name is mentioned.

Palin however, ran, got nominated for her job, won the job, and quit when it got too hard. She has never, that I can recall, had a single idea that I can recall that had any more substance than the "great snack debate" of her own, nor has she actually shown all that much firmness on any other idea.

She essentially stands for nothing, has little qualifications, no staying power, and is best seen though the telling of mildly amusing jokes along the lines of "I brought cookies" and "lipstick on a pig". and the ability to make folksy sounding remarks like "ya betcha".

Now, apparently she gets a reality TV show...wow, just like Ozzy..I have no doubt she will come across as just as intelligent.

The real hilarity is when all is said and done you are pissed because someone is saying the truth about her, and you have absolutely nothing to defend her with!

The best you can do is make a small crack about me which doesn't even reflect reality.

Yes it is true, I can if I so desire "defend" Obama...he has actual accomplishments, like them or not, he has things he has actually done.

Palin has essentially made herself into a joke, she is the Tina Fey impersonation of herself at this point. It pisses me off that the party gives her any credibility after she has make such an obnoxious example out of herself.

She was the republican nominee for vice president of the United States and now apparently she is a real tv skank who butts into school board lunch menu business.

[old Grump]

The more she gets shot at the better she looks to her supporters. Not my first choice for any office but I sure can think of worst choices this country has made.

Not accomplished anything??? Looks like she has been a fairly effective cheerleader for her candidates and her little mistakes just make her look more human, more 'folks like us', to those who buy into her.

If she was a joke she wouldn't have so many power hitters taking swings at her.

[insider]

The problem is kids don't get enough playground time. Schools are so scared of some kid getting hurt at recess and getting sued, they just do away with it. Also, sodas are not made with sugar, they are filled with high fructose corn syrup, the worst kind of sweetner your body can consume! So, lack of exercise, and hard to digest fructose, is what is making these kids obese! Plus fast foods and video games don't help either. Kids need to run and play, not get ruled and regulated to death.:running-dog:

[crapshoot]

Threatened? No.

Terrified? Yes.

To think a woman that completely out of touch with the ridiculous nature of what comes out of her own mouth actually has enough popular support to be considered as any sort of realistic candidate for the presidency is seriously frightening.

Frankly I wouldn't concern myself with her at all, except it has become fully apparent that my countrymen are so ignorant as to elect a polarizing figure such as Obama, that I am left with little doubt that given the correct set of circumstances they would repeat said idiocy to include votes for Palin is no longer outside the realm of imagination.

Mickey Mouse always gets a few votes in every election, frankly I never gave thought that he might win!

She is talking about an intrusion of "big government" from a local school board concerning the friggen lunch menu!

Selma Alabama this is not.

Bullshit.

This country needs an EXTREME right wing president and congress to offset the utter destruction the hippy generation has done to this country. This country has been so pussified complacent that it needs someone to eliminate stupid bullshit regulations that libtards that you worship to get the free market back where it needs to be.


Less government, more freedom. <------ There is no way you can argue that statement without being a complete communist scumbag.

[Kadmos]

Sorry, which republican president gave us less government?

Was it Nixon? Nope, social spending outpaced military spending for the first time under Nixon. More than doubled social spending.

Now Reagan, he was for small government right? Oh, wrong again huge increases in spending across the board. The budget went from $678 Billion to 1.5 trillion. But of course he balanced our budget with that huge increase right? Nope, he added 1.9 trillion to the national debt, bringing budget deficits from 79 billion to 212 billion in his first term!

He averaged twice the annual increase in spending as Clinton did.

But of course Reagan was against social spending and government interference in peoples lives...which was why he threw the "war on drugs" into high gear, which has led to incredible wasteful spending and some of the most oppressive police tactics.

No need to even really discuss those whose last names start with "B":dammit:

Eh, maybe you are right though, a real conservative republican like Palin might end up more interested in her TV career and taunting of little school boards to help drive the country further into the ground...

Of course if you consider things like facts where under her small government and limited budget initiatives you would have seen that there is more federal spending per capita in Alaska than any other state by a rather large margin. Might note that Alaska gets nearly $2 back from the Fed for every dollar it sends. Might note that she was so against big government that she took a stand against the bridge to nowhere (after public outcry) say "If we want a bridge we will build it ourselves"..but kept the money congress sent her for it.

It isn't an unreasoned hatred I have for her, it is her record and morals I find repugnant.

[MOP]

Obama's qualifications ?

1) voting "present" on a yes/no issue !

2) claiming that there 're 57 states + 2 that he needed to go to + 1 that he's not allowed to visit...that is 60 states !!

3) claimed that his uncle helped to liberate a Nazi Concentration Camp. That campwas liberated
by Red Army troops !!!

4) The people needed jobs.....and he gave us Commie Health Care !!!!
.
.
.
.
.
#3 might be true, as Obama turned out to be a Commie POS.

[mriddick]

Obama's qualifications ?

1) voting "present" on a yes/no issue !

2) claiming that there 're 57 states + 2 that he needed to go to + 1 that he's not allowed to visit...that is 60 states !!

3) claimed that his uncle helped to liberate a Nazi Concentration Camp. That campwas liberated
by Red Army troops !!!

4) The people needed jobs.....and he gave us Commie Health Care !!!!
.
.
.
.
.
#3 might be true, as Obama turned out to be a Commie POS.

I hope the next election does not come down to who is most of the least qualified person to take office...

[HDR]

To think a woman that completely out of touch with the ridiculous nature of what comes out of her own mouth actually has enough popular support to be considered as any sort of realistic candidate for the presidency is seriously frightening.

That sounds more as if you are speaking about 0bama than Palin.



She is talking about an intrusion of "big government" from a local school board concerning the friggen lunch menu!

Selma Alabama this is not.

It would be a hell of a lot easier to name a place where the Federal government does not intrude into our lives than where it does.

When it comes to the Fed's intrusion they are totally out of control.

[mriddick]

That sounds more as if you are speaking about 0bama than Palin.




It would be a hell of a lot easier to name a place where the Federal government does not intrude into our lives than where it does.

When it comes to the Fed's intrusion they are totally out of control.

If there is a push to get rid of sweets in the schools that push would come from the local school board. This is where Gov Palin's logic fails and she comes across as unknowing of government, local school boards and the Constitution.

[Cypher]

Sorry, which republican president gave us less government?

Was it Nixon? Nope, social spending outpaced military spending for the first time under Nixon. More than doubled social spending.

Now Reagan, he was for small government right? Oh, wrong again huge increases in spending across the board. The budget went from $678 Billion to 1.5 trillion. But of course he balanced our budget with that huge increase right? Nope, he added 1.9 trillion to the national debt, bringing budget deficits from 79 billion to 212 billion in his first term!

He averaged twice the annual increase in spending as Clinton did.

But of course Reagan was against social spending and government interference in peoples lives...which was why he threw the "war on drugs" into high gear, which has led to incredible wasteful spending and some of the most oppressive police tactics.

No need to even really discuss those whose last names start with "B":dammit:

Eh, maybe you are right though, a real conservative republican like Palin might end up more interested in her TV career and taunting of little school boards to help drive the country further into the ground...

Of course if you consider things like facts where under her small government and limited budget initiatives you would have seen that there is more federal spending per capita in Alaska than any other state by a rather large margin. Might note that Alaska gets nearly $2 back from the Fed for every dollar it sends. Might note that she was so against big government that she took a stand against the bridge to nowhere (after public outcry) say "If we want a bridge we will build it ourselves"..but kept the money congress sent her for it.

It isn't an unreasoned hatred I have for her, it is her record and morals I find repugnant.

There you go again :wink:

http://heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2004/06/Defending-the-Reagan-Deficits



Defending the Reagan Deficits
Critics of President Reagan's budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?

Coverage of President Reagan's legacy has been generally fair, with one exception. Many say, "Reagan masterfully won the cold war … but those budget deficits." Or "America needed Reagan's infectious optimism … but those budget deficits."

Not all debt is bad. Mortgage debt and student loan debt are worthy investments. No one criticizes President Franklin Roosevelt for the massive debt that financed World War II. Yet the commentators criticizing President Reagan for the $2.1 trillion in added debt (all numbers are in today's dollars) ignore how that debt won the Cold War, lowered the tax burden, and ignited the largest economic boom in American history.

Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:

Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.

No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan's defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America's defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan's powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan's insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)

This tax relief unleashed a 20-year surge of entrepreneurship, as the U.S. economy tripled in size. The lasting impact of these policies can be seen in successive presidents, who ratified Reaganomics by refusing to even consider raising taxes back to their 1970s levels. Thus, America continues to benefit from lower tax rates.

Would you trade 2.8 million jobs? Before the Reagan tax relief, the unemployment rate averaged 7.7 percent. Since the tax cuts, it has averaged 5.8 percent -- a difference that translates into 2.8 million jobs per year.

Would you trade $15,000 of your annual income? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the average household's annual disposable income increased $13,000. In the 20 years following Reagan's tax cuts, these incomes surged $28,000.

Would you trade the stock market boom? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the S&P 500 increased 120 percent. In the 20 years following Reagan's tax cuts, the market jumped 575 percent.

And don't forget the 12 percent inflation rate and 21 percent interest rates that Reaganomics slew.

The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history. Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s, and rising incomes meant the share of taxes paid by the wealthy actually increased throughout the 1980s. Millions of people who had entered the 1980s in the lowest income quintile surged to the highest income quintile by 1990.

All a coincidence? As Reagan would say, "there you go again."

Sure, President Reagan would have preferred to minimize the deficits by eliminating wasteful spending. However, the only way to persuade a Democratic Congress to accept a defense buildup and pro-growth tax cuts was to agree to their domestic spending demands.

Ironically, the 1980s budget deficits made the 1990s surpluses possible. The budget was balanced by surging tax revenues from a booming, low-tax economy and defense savings brought on by the end of the Cold War.

To paraphrase a classic President Reagan line: Are you better off today than you were in 1980?

Brian Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. .

[crapshoot]

Sorry, which republican president gave us less government?

Was it Nixon? Nope, social spending outpaced military spending for the first time under Nixon. More than doubled social spending.

Now Reagan, he was for small government right? Oh, wrong again huge increases in spending across the board. The budget went from $678 Billion to 1.5 trillion. But of course he balanced our budget with that huge increase right? Nope, he added 1.9 trillion to the national debt, bringing budget deficits from 79 billion to 212 billion in his first term!

He averaged twice the annual increase in spending as Clinton did.

But of course Reagan was against social spending and government interference in peoples lives...which was why he threw the "war on drugs" into high gear, which has led to incredible wasteful spending and some of the most oppressive police tactics.

No need to even really discuss those whose last names start with "B":dammit:

Eh, maybe you are right though, a real conservative republican like Palin might end up more interested in her TV career and taunting of little school boards to help drive the country further into the ground...

Of course if you consider things like facts where under her small government and limited budget initiatives you would have seen that there is more federal spending per capita in Alaska than any other state by a rather large margin. Might note that Alaska gets nearly $2 back from the Fed for every dollar it sends. Might note that she was so against big government that she took a stand against the bridge to nowhere (after public outcry) say "If we want a bridge we will build it ourselves"..but kept the money congress sent her for it.

It isn't an unreasoned hatred I have for her, it is her record and morals I find repugnant.

I hope Palin does run for president now, just out of spite towards liberals like you.

[jjeez]

It bothered me when she quit her job, I was willing to look past it if that meant she would do some real good in this country.


Now she has a reality show....

She is done in my book...I used to defend her and now I have nothing.

[NRAJOE]

As much as I like Sarah (wouldn't mind doing her on a moosehide) I think she has no more chances politically.

[Kadmos]

Ironically, the 1980s budget deficits made the 1990s surpluses possible. The budget was balanced by surging tax revenues from a booming, low-tax economy and defense savings brought on by the end of the Cold War.

To paraphrase a classic President Reagan line: Are you better off today than you were in 1980?

You left something out


Published on June 16, 2004

:lool:



Yeah it's ridiculous to give Reagan credit for what happened under Clinton without backpedaling really really hard for what happened under Bush.

Ask people if they were living better in 1980 and they just might answer yes, especially if they happen to be living under an overpass.




I hope Palin does run for president now, just out of spite towards liberals like you.

I didn't realize you liked Obama so much that you want him for another four years.

While I am wondering if the Americans will elect anyone, including Mickey Mouse, truth be told I don't think there is any way they will elect Palin.

I know if it was Obama v. Palin I would sit at home and watch reruns, no real reason to bother going to the polls.

You think Palin has been hit hard by the media now, put "for president" after her name in a public place and the media will absolutely eat her for breakfast.

She's already been chewed up and spit out.

She's pretty much ready to sit under a muppet on Hollywood squares as it is.

She will be little more then an election joke, and will make a joke of the Republican party by her presence.

If she were any kind of serious candidate then why didn't she go to congress in this last election?

If she wanted to get to the White House the path was clear, stick in the Governors mansion till election time, go to congress, then make a presidential bid.

If she was on any actual path to the White House that would have been the best route. You can say those mean Dems with their lawsuits made her quit, but she would have had to stick, what..8-9 months? Then off to congress and problem solved.

Would have given her governorship and house experience, could have been groomed into a reasonable chance...

Instead she is the woman who quit, had a ghost written book, and will soon be seen on reality tv baking cookies, yelling at her kids, and making one liners.

[Cypher]

You left something out

:lool:

Yeah it's ridiculous to give Reagan credit for what happened under Clinton without backpedaling really really hard for what happened under Bush.

Ask people if they were living better in 1980 and they just might answer yes, especially if they happen to be living under an overpass.

Typical, say something that's completely wrong then pat yourself on the back, silly goose.

I would suggest reading the entire article and doing some research on the subject.

[Kadmos]

Typical, say something that's completely wrong then pat yourself on the back, silly goose.

I would suggest reading the entire article and doing some research on the subject.

I read the article, it was crap it 2004, trying to give Reagan credit for everything that has happened since his Presidency.

If you do happen to agree with the basic premise (which I don't), then what..did the great Reagan powerhouse that saw us through 20 years suddenly expire when Bush Jr got into office?

Somehow Reagan tax cuts and massive spending gave us the Clinton years boom, but Bush tax cuts and massive spending led us into economic collapse?

It's crap, and if it wasn't obvious crap to you in 2004, then it should certainly be obvious crap to you now.

[MOP]

Sleek Willie is a Shithead,

and Comrade Obama is also a Shithead.

Their minions are Shit Lickers.

[Cypher]

I read the article, it was crap it 2004, trying to give Reagan credit for everything that has happened since his Presidency.

If you do happen to agree with the basic premise (which I don't), then what..did the great Reagan powerhouse that saw us through 20 years suddenly expire when Bush Jr got into office?

Somehow Reagan tax cuts and massive spending gave us the Clinton years boom, but Bush tax cuts and massive spending led us into economic collapse?

It's crap, and if it wasn't obvious crap to you in 2004, then it should certainly be obvious crap to you now.

Obviously reading and comprehending are two different things.

[Kadmos]

Obviously reading and comprehending are two different things.

So it would seem.

[Cypher]

So it would seem.

It's OK, you'll get better at it with time, the more you start reading and researching subjects like this the more you will get the hang of it.

[Kadmos]

It's OK, you'll get better at it with time, the more you start reading and researching subjects like this the more you will get the hang of it.

I've done the reading, I've done the research, I've even honed my debating skills, but frankly I think you are wrong, it really doesn't matter what I do, I simply will never get those who have drank the cool aid to understand any sort of basic logic.

If people would at least read what they copy and paste, or perhaps make some sort of statement as to what their thesis is, rather than some "there you go again" then a copy and paste, then perhaps the argument would make sense.

Frankly, you've said so little that I'm not sure if your position is that Reagan created small government through fiscal responsibility, or simply that there are valid excuses that republicans are allowed to use when they do the exact opposite?

Yes the 2004 article mentions a pile of excuses as to why Reagan overspent, but this doesn't negate the fact that he overspent. It doesn't negate the fact that there has never been a balanced budget under a republican in the near past, or really any time I can think of.

It also does not show or even indicate that Palin shows any propensity towards fiscal responsibility.

And of course the article happens to be one major recession out of date, one which without a single doubt happened while a republican was in office.

Naturally you aren't willing to actually argue the merits of any of this, only take cheap and off target shots at me, which again makes this a waste of my time.

But since I've already wasted my time, why don't you use those oh so impressive research skills that drag up out of date materials and find out who actually started Reagan's great "spend them into oblivion" plan.

[Cypher]

Wow Kadmos, I didn't mean to strike a nerve. I was wrong, you will never get a clue no matter how much research you do.

I can Polly Parrot things I have read all day long and articulate it into my own writing, like you and everyone else does in reality, but that has absolutely nothing to do with facts introduced into an argument by pasting a link and a quote, why should I waste time saying something that has already been said and researched by someone else. I don't really have any desire to go on rambling with someone that will never listen so paste away I will if that's what I feel like doing.

Hmmm, one thing, why don't you write a letter to Barney Frank and the Community Reinvestment Act proponents about the recession that they caused with the housing market. And really, you act as if 2004 was in the 50's or something is that really all you can come up with?

Hey, did you start this site? http://jewsforsarah.com/?page_id=38

:roflwithfeetcv2:

[Kadmos]

You are absolutely right 2004 isn't 1950. If we were looking at the difference between 2004 and 2010 with 50 years of hazy memories it might not look that different.

But from here it sure looks like 30 million unemployed, millions homeless and 1 in 5 or so on some type of public assistance.

You need to wake up and get a fucking clue before you use a 2004 article praising Reagan as some sort of measure to show how fiscally responsible republicans are, because right now no one would give a rats ass if Russia went back to communism and people without jobs aren't really caring all that much about his great tax cuts either!

Posting that with it's question of "did things look better in 1980" was just fucking stupid and I can't believe you honestly don't see that!

Only losing 2.8 million jobs...we had months worse than that!

unemployment under 8% looks pretty fucking good right now

You seriously brought up the fucking stock market boom?

Seriously???

You are aware it fucking crashed right?


The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history

Followed 4 years after the article by the actual deepest recession since the great depression, which somehow you have managed to have slept through so far.

And that's what you want to bring up?


Did YOU actually read the article and comprehend it?

No, obviously you did not. You did a freaking google search with "Reagan, Deficits, and defense thereof" copied and pasted the first thing you saw and tried to make an "oh there you go again Kadmos" moment out of it.

Now go back, read it again, think for 30 seconds, at least admit to yourself that it was a stupid thing to post, and shut the fuck up!

[Cypher]

You are absolutely right 2004 isn't 1950. If we were looking at the difference between 2004 and 2010 with 50 years of hazy memories it might not look that different.

But from here it sure looks like 30 million unemployed, millions homeless and 1 in 5 or so on some type of public assistance.

You need to wake up and get a fucking clue before you use a 2004 article praising Reagan as some sort of measure to show how fiscally responsible republicans are, because right now no one would give a rats ass if Russia went back to communism and people without jobs aren't really caring all that much about his great tax cuts either!

Posting that with it's question of "did things look better in 1980" was just fucking stupid and I can't believe you honestly don't see that!

Only losing 2.8 million jobs...we had months worse than that!

unemployment under 8% looks pretty fucking good right now

You seriously brought up the fucking stock market boom?

Seriously???

You are aware it fucking crashed right?

Followed 4 years after the article by the actual deepest recession since the great depression, which somehow you have managed to have slept through so far.

And that's what you want to bring up?

Did YOU actually read the article and comprehend it?

No, obviously you did not. You did a freaking google search with "Reagan, Deficits, and defense thereof" copied and pasted the first thing you saw and tried to make an "oh there you go again Kadmos" moment out of it.

Now go back, read it again, think for 30 seconds, at least admit to yourself that it was a stupid thing to post, and shut the fuck up!

This is actually quite funny, I’ve never seen you go off on such a hateful immature rant like this, it’s hilarious reading threads full of internet bravery cussing people out when in the comfort of their home, I’m sure we’ve all done it once or twice. I bet your drunk aren’t you?

If you had actually read the article you would see the point of me posting it in reference to your jab at Reagan, contradicting your ill informed opinions.

Your argument that the article was written in 2004 is invalid, yes there have been down turns, yes there have been problems since 2004 but implying that it happened because of Reagan’s presidency was not effective is foolish. The facts are still valid and make their point well. I could dig up dozens of articles proving the benefits of the Reagan administration, which was the point of my post to begin with, but it doesn’t really benefit me in any way at this point.

The economic down turns that you seem to be blaming Reagan and republicans for were mostly caused by democrat influenced policy not by republican presidents. Thanks to Bush’s stimulus 1, the democrat induced housing subprime mortgage crisis that really put our current problems in high gear, and then obama went in and threw a barrel of gasoline on the fire while the country was trying to put it out. Bush made plenty of mistakes but blaming him and/or republicans in general for the current economic problems is just wrong. Compared to the last two years, 2004 – 2008 were a cake walk.

And no I didn’t do a search to find that article, so…:tongue:

[Kadmos]

This is actually quite funny, I’ve never seen you go off on such a hateful immature rant like this, it’s hilarious reading threads full of internet bravery cussing people out when in the comfort of their home, I’m sure we’ve all done it once or twice. I bet your drunk aren’t you?

I don't drink.

I have though lost some of the patience I formerly had at being called a libtard and keeping my cool and on topic regardless.

I'm tired of one lines and stupid comments being the substance of 90% of the threads on this board which at one time appeared to contain quite a number of thoughtful intelligent people.

Please for the rest of you bothering to read this don't take offense, some of you are fully aware and able to carry on decent conversations at a higher level of thinking...hopefully you know who you are and I don't need to point it out, because doing so might leave out someone, or given my possible reputation here might make you embarrassed and feel the need to distance yourself from my praise.

At any rate, it gets old, and I got a bit annoyed last night.


If you had actually read the article you would see the point of me posting it in reference to your jab at Reagan, contradicting your ill informed opinions.

My "jab" was at the notion that a Republican president is, has been, or will be fiscally responsible. While the "talk" may be there, the "walk" certainly has not been seen...well pretty much as far back as I can think.

If you care to make excuses as to why this is, that's fine, it still doesn't change the actual facts of what we have seen.

But before you drag up an article giving excuses you may want to look it over and make sure that the basic premise of it still holds up, or that it isn't out of date in such a way as to not only look stupid, but to actually not be insulting to people reading it!

Ya know, givin what has happened since the article was written....


Your argument that the article was written in 2004 is invalid, yes there have been down turns, yes there have been problems since 2004 but implying that it happened because of Reagan’s presidency was not effective is foolish. The facts are still valid and make their point well.

The "facts" of the article are the numbers presented in it. NONE of them are still valid, and they make the article look idiotic. The article is trying to use those numbers to prove how much better off we are because of Reagan's policies. I hope you comprehend that after hopefully rereading the article for the 3rd or 4th time now.

Since ALL of those numbers are now worse, the argument loses quite a bit of it's support.



I could dig up dozens of articles proving the benefits of the Reagan administration, which was the point of my post to begin with, but it doesn’t really benefit me in any way at this point.

I imagine you could.

One would hope you might next time find a more general argument about his successes, preferable one without numbers. And maybe one with a different premise, all things considered.

Go ahead and tell us all how very much he accomplished if it makes you feel better, but please don't bother telling us how fiscally responsible he was.


The economic down turns that you seem to be blaming Reagan and republicans for were mostly caused by democrat influenced policy not by republican presidents. Thanks to Bush’s stimulus 1, the democrat induced housing subprime mortgage crisis that really put our current problems in high gear, and then obama went in and threw a barrel of gasoline on the fire while the country was trying to put it out. Bush made plenty of mistakes but blaming him and/or republicans in general for the current economic problems is just wrong. Compared to the last two years, 2004 – 2008 were a cake walk.

I didn't blame anyone, frankly I don't think the blame falls all that much on the government truth be told.

But I do see you are a Glenn Beck fan and have completely drunk the cool aid on that one.

However, that said, anyone with a pulse, an IQ over 80, and who hasn't been in a coma for the last 60+ years can see that right there on black and white when it comes right down to it, the Republican presidents we have had certainly haven't actually given us the fiscal responsibility that they so frequently talk about

I am not saying the democrats are really any better, although we had a balanced budget, and a surplus, under one president in the last 100 years. Congress at the time was Republican.

I have no real interest in assigning either praise or blame for either, but we are in a similar situation now....and frankly I would love to see that repeated, and no I'm not going to cry and throw fits if the budget happens to get balanced under Obama, I'm simply going to be happy that it is.


And no I didn’t do a search to find that article, so…:tongue:

So you had been holding onto it since 2004? Perhaps reading it over and over again? Taped it to your fridge?

Perhaps that explains it...have you read anything else since?

Just came out of that coma?

Might explain why your argument is so out of date

[HDR]

Kadmos,
CRA, full entitlements for the whole family of illegals as soon as the anchor baby is born, passing laws which send jobs overseas, handing out favored trade status to China were all brought to us by democrats.

As the result of Johnson's Great Society seven trillion dollars have been spent and just what was accomplished? A building gets remodeled and in a very short time it is vandalized, abused and falling apart again. Housing projects end up being dangerous places with drug dealers, crime and shootings.

Who has shoved pounds of pork down our throats using "never let a crisis go to waste"?

Rather than deny illegals and those who never contributed a dime the first thought on a democrat's mind is to take from our own who contributed all their lives.


The nation is fed up with their agenda of entitlements, foreign aid, taxes and failure.

It is what it is.

[mriddick]

I'm not sure has much to do anything other then Gov Palin showing she doesn't really understand much more in politics then say something inflammatory for the media so you get in the news. I'd hope by now she's learned something and improved herself to run 2012, sadly I don't think she has and if anything slipped backwards. I truly hope someone who is a conservative we can all get behind runs because at this point I don't think it's her.

[MOP]

Fuck all SOBs.......who bad-mouthed Sarah !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and Fuck their Party of Slavery !

[Lysander]

I'm not sure has much to do anything other then Gov Palin showing she doesn't really understand much more in politics then say something inflammatory for the media so you get in the news. I'd hope by now she's learned something and improved herself to run 2012, sadly I don't think she has and if anything slipped backwards. I truly hope someone who is a conservative we can all get behind runs because at this point I don't think it's her.


Palin hasn't been "The One" since she decided to become a tabloid celebrity instead of a serious politician. I bear a particularly large amount of rancor towards her because she, and a few others, hijacked the Tea Party and turned it into their weapon of retribution against the Republican establishment. At it's inception, the TP was grassroots and bipartisan. Now, it's Fox News, Beck, and Palin leading the charge.

I was really liking Mark Sanders, actually, I still do. I am completely willing to overlook his own douchebaggery of late if he'd promise to handle his mistresses with a bit more sense.

As it stands, there isn't a single prospective Republican Presidential Candidate that I would get out and vote for.

[mriddick]

Was she wrong....Yes on several counts
Did she do this just for the attention.....Yes and she mentions doing this to throw the MSM a bone in her speech.

Is it a local matter or a national one? Do you find it odd she's there as a national figure weighing in on a local issue on the side of the locals who she says should not follow the national leaders? Her logic is running around in circles...

I'm not really against Gov Palin but I don't feel she's grown much over the last 2 years and it's things like this sort of reinforces that feeling. And this is coming from a guy who's been following her alot longer then anyone else on the board.

[Lysander]

Was she wrong....Yes on several counts
Did she do this just for the attention.....Yes

Like I said, she's made the choice to be a tabloid celeb and not a serious politician.


and she mentions doing this to throw the MSM a bone in her speech.

If she had an ounce of sense she'd avoid throwing the MSM anything other than logical, well reasoned arguments about issues relevant to her political aspirations. Had she shown up at the Wasilla, AK school board doing this, that'd be one thing. There she's just another citizen trying to do best by their children that they can. Going across the country shows, as you noted, that she doesn't get anything about the Constitution, delegation of the authority, or how to mind her own business.


Is it a local matter or a national one? Do you find it odd she's there as a national figure weighing in on a local issue on the side of the locals who she says should not follow the national leaders? Her logic is running around in circles...

Her only logic is "Media Exposure", and when examined through that lens her decisions make slightly more sense.

[mriddick]

I agree completely, she's given in to the "any news is good news" philosophy. This might work for a Hollywood star but makes for a poor politician.

[Cypher]

.

You truly are amazing, and not in a good way. You made a fool of yourself and have shown your true colors, and now all you can do is backpedal, make excuses, throw out drivel and lame insults to someone through your computer screen many miles away, grow up. I really thought you were better than that but I was severely wrong.

Do you really not understand the garbage that has happened in this country since 2004, mostly brought on by democrats, this in no way refutes the good things that came from Reagan presidency. So the numbers prove what Reagan did to help and now all of a sudden because some dims drive the economy into the ground it “proves” Reagan’s policies didn’t help even though there are solid statistics over the last 20 years, somehow the last 20 years have been magically invalidated. The only thing it proves is how damaging the wrong people in DC can be for this country in such a short time. Are you for real? Seriously man, get a clue please.

In case you haven’t noticed there are more people that would be considered conservative on the boards, why do you come here, if by your own admission, it’s full of a bunch of idiot one line spouting conservatives. Did it ever dawn on you that sometimes you don’t have to write a 10000 word essay to make a point when the facts are so obvious and out there for anyone that wants to know? Did it ever occur to you that many of us work full time and multiple jobs and don’t consider spending hours on end proving that which is already well known, to someone that will never get a clue a productive use of time? Did you ever imagine that if you go to a board with a lot of conservatives on it, spouting ill informed opinions and insults to conservatives that someone just might post something contrary to what you just said? And then you get all huffy because someone dares to point out a few facts, what am I missing here?

I’ve seen a few Glenn Beck clips on you tube but I never watch the show. I know enough about him to know that you would do well to start watching his show.

[MOP]

Serious Politicians, and well qualified such as :

1) Bush I = Global Agenda/New World Order

2) Slick Willie = Global Agenda/neo-socialism

3) Bush II = Global Agenda/neo-socialism

4) Obongo = Global Agenda/Full-blown-Socialism

These 4 SOBs broke the back of the US economy...they all caused a net loss

of American Jobs !!!

We're doomed as a nation, if the people continued to elect Leaders with Global Agendas.

[Lysander]

Did Printerferd change his handle while I was gone or did he and Weaseltits spawn?

[HDR]

I bear a particularly large amount of rancor towards her because she, and a few others, hijacked the Tea Party and turned it into their weapon of retribution against the Republican establishment. At it's inception, the TP was grassroots and bipartisan. Now, it's Fox News, Beck, and Palin leading the charge.

They gave the Tea Party a point of focus which put TP candidates in office.


As it stands, there isn't a single prospective Republican Presidential Candidate that I would get out and vote for.

The only people who are grateful are 0bama and the democrats.

[Lysander]

They gave the Tea Party a point of focus which put TP candidates in office.

Being co-opted by ousted Republicans is hardly what I'd call "focus".




The only people who are grateful are 0bama and the democrats.

Because our votes for McCain made such a difference, right?

[Kadmos]

Kadmos,
CRA, full entitlements for the whole family of illegals as soon as the anchor baby is born, passing laws which send jobs overseas, handing out favored trade status to China were all brought to us by democrats.

The CRA probably had very little if any impact in the 08 crisis. Over 50% of the failures were on commercial properties that don't even fall into the pervue of the CRA. Both the FDIC and the FSB have gone on record saying the CRA wasn't the issue.

But even if it were part of the problem, where was Bush on it? Where was Reagan, or Bush Sr. on it? All of them actually strengthened it. Bush signed a bill in front of cameras hand over millions of dollars for poor people to use government money as down payments for houses they otherwise wouldn't have.

Trade with China was opened by Nixon, and every single president since has expanded trade with China.


As the result of Johnson's Great Society seven trillion dollars have been spent and just what was accomplished? A building gets remodeled and in a very short time it is vandalized, abused and falling apart again. Housing projects end up being dangerous places with drug dealers, crime and shootings.

The GS wasn't just tenement housing.

You are talking about 20 or so acts and bills including

Medicare
Medicaid
Civil rights act
Voting rights act
Child safety act
NEA
NEH
Motor vehicle safety act
headstart
Flammable fabrics act
Truth in lending
NHTSA
Radiation safety
Land sales disclosure
wilderness act
waters act
national historic preservation act
environmental policy act

and probably a good dozen or so more. Sorry you rang a personal bell with me on that one, it was a serious legislative era.

We could argue the merits of all of them of course, but I think if you were honest about it you know that you would win some and lose some, but overall a lot of important stuff happened and a lot of it was really good for the country.

Either way you are perfectly aware that while Republicans have talked bad about a lot of it, in reality there are only a very very few of these things they actually have tried to undo since than, and they raised the funding on dozens of those as well. Bush darn near doubled the funding for the national endowment for arts.



Who has shoved pounds of pork down our throats using "never let a crisis go to waste"?

You are of course speaking of things like the war on drugs, star wars, tear down that wall, Gulf war I, and four trucks sitting in a parking lot viewed from a satellite "proving" that Iraq was waiting to cover us all in anthrax to the tune of a 11 billion dollar a month decade-ish long war?

But really that's penny ante stuff, lets go back to 2005 when we had a republican pres and republicans in both houses of congress. We would expect some fiscal responsibility then, right?

Sure we were at war and the spending from that was quite a bit, so ok maybe we wouldn't expect a balanced budget that year.

But this fiscally responsible party shoved through the most pork laden bill in ALL of US history, the Highway bill...multi billion roadway reconstruction that ended up over half a trillion dollars (including just under a billion dollars to Alaska under Palin) with over 6,100 "personal projects" (PORK) including of course that Alaskan bridge to nowhere that Palin took the money for but didn't build.

Fine fine, it wasn't just her, a 10 million or so went to "repave" a really really small parking lot in Harlem. Damn near everyone in Washington went home with fat pockets on that deal

On a side note, McCain voting No on that whole deal was a very good part of why I personally voted for him.

On the same note, they tried to do a similar deal under Reagan and he shut it down before it even went a paltry 2 billion over budget.




The nation is fed up with their agenda of entitlements, foreign aid, taxes and failure.

It is what it is.

And I don't blame them.

But when you say "their agenda" I really hope you mean the agenda of BOTH of the major political parties.

Cyhper, I'm sorry. I should have kept my cool better. I lumped you in with people calling me a libtard and you didn't deserve that. I got riled up and blathered on. I stand by my main thesis that neither party has shown any real shred of fiscal responsibility, but I put it in an insulting way that wasn't necessary. I wish I could take back several of the things I said, starting with Palin being an idiot...I should have chosen a better way to put it. And a better way to put alot of things. I look forward to more equally spirited, but calmer, more civil, debates with you in the future.

[Congo]

I thought she was wrong for quitting, now I'm not so sure.
I thought her leaving her position in alaska and coming down to get into the mainstream of the lower 48 was right on for two reasons:
1. the liberal/progressives fixation upon her wasn't good in any way for alaska/alaskans
and
2. she was the face of the anti-mainstream media, anti-obama, and all anti-obama ideas. So she got a lot of "normal/average" people in the US to not only start paying attention, but to start standing up and stating their opinion, be counted, etc.

People can like her or not, respect her or not, but she mainstreamed the wave that took place last election. She was riding that wave while others didn't even know it was coming.