Palin 2012

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Happy, pleased and cheerful to oblige, Randel.

Why Republicans Are So Darn Happy - washingtonpost.com

Republicans Happier than Democrats | LiveScience

Cute ... an opinion piece from the, "DEPT. OF ****-EYED OPTIMISTS" :lamo

 

[pbrauer]

For 180 pages? And he is just one man. How many Libs are there raving on about Paul Revere's ride?

It defines smallmindedness.

Conservative has 452 posts in this thread mostly ragging on Obama. In fact he turns every thread to be about Obama. He has major Obama Derangement Syndrome.

 

[pbrauer]

Happy, pleased and cheerful to oblige, Randel.

Why Republicans Are So Darn Happy - washingtonpost.com

Republicans Happier than Democrats | LiveScience

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Misterveritis]

Did you spot the irony of the post just prior to yours from a Conservative taking a shot at Obama for writing "2008" in the Westminster Abbey guestbook?

Hey! I resemble that remark! :applaud

 

[pbrauer]

Poor fbi10. So wedded to your agenda that you refuse to see reality. Can't even decipher a simple quote because of your dishonesty. Sad, very sad at how badly defeated you have been.

So true, the funny thing is watching those people who cover her mistakes. I just watched Chris Wallace who had an exclusive interview with a Fox employee - Sarah Palin. She doubled down on her gaffee, but Wallace didn't press on her version.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

First bold part: She never said that the bells were rung to warn the British troops.

I see your problem -- you don't understand what Palin said. She said he warned the British BY ringing those bells.

He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells​

You or anyone else have yet to prove that it is indeed a gaffe...still waiting.

Yeah, it's been proven over and over and over. She's become a laughing stock throughout the media, including rightwing media like Fox, over it. Only her most diehard sycophants remain clinging to the notion that Palin got her historic facts correct and that it's everyone else who's wrong.

During which part of this explanation did she say that Paul revered said "the British are coming, the British are coming..."??

"he warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming" ~ Sarah Palin
​

That is untrue, contrary to popular folklore, Paul Revere never said, "the British are coming, the british are coming," he said "the regulars are coming out."

Office of Counterintelligence

2. What was his plan to warn the British that they're not going to take away our arms and how did he execute that plan?

Second question...rephrase it...it makes no sense.

She said he was a courrier and that part of his ride was to warn the British that they would not succeed in taking away our arms. I don't recall that ever being part of the mission he set out for. What was his plan to warn the British that they were not going to take our arms away and how did he execute that plan? Not sure what part of that question you don't understand?

The quitter? That's weak...did you feel the same way about when Obama "the quitter" quit the senate??

It's accepted when public servants leave one public seat for another. In fact, it was approved by the public as they voted for him to leave his Senate seat for the White House. Sarah "The Quitter" Palin quit her position without the consent of her constituents who voted her in as governor.

She does know her american history....

If she did, she wouldn't have gotten the events of Paul Revere wrong.

 

[Conservative]

I see your problem -- you don't understand what Palin said. She said he warned the British BY ringing those bells.

He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells​

Yeah, it's been proven over and over and over. She's become a laughing stock throughout the media, including rightwing media like Fox, over it. Only her most diehard sycophants remain clinging to the notion that Palin got her historic facts correct and that it's everyone else who's wrong.

"he warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming" ~ Sarah Palin
​

That is untrue, contrary to popular folklore, Paul Revere never said, "the British are coming, the british are coming," he said "the regulars are coming out."

Office of Counterintelligence


She said he was a courrier and that part of his ride was to warn the British that they would not succeed in taking away our arms. I don't recall that ever being part of the mission he set out for. What was his plan to warn the British that they were not going to take our arms away and how did he execute that plan? Not sure what part of that question you don't understand?


It's accepted when public servants leave one public seat for another. In fact, it was approved by the public as they voted for him to leave his Senate seat for the White House. Sarah "The Quitter" Palin quit her position without the consent of her constituents who voted her in as governor.


If she did, she wouldn't have gotten the events of Paul Revere wrong.

So I take it that given the choice between Obama and Palin you will vote for the one that is increasing unemployment, reducing employment, increasing the debt, spending more of our GDP on govt. and making more people dependent on the govt? Although my vote won't matter because obama has no chance of winning TX I will be voting for Palin given that opportunity.

 

[BDBoop]

Might be interesting. Or not.

Looming in the week ahead is Alaska's release of 24,000 pages of emails sent and received by Palin during her time as governor. They will provide an inside look into her rise from obscurity to a spot on the national stage.

The emails cover a majority of her short term as governor and could provide the most insight into how she governed the nation's largest state. Her only other elected office was as a two-term mayor of her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, which has a population of about 7,000.

The emails cover the first 21 months of Palin's tenure, ending in September 2008, after GOP presidential nominee John McCain selected her to be his running mate.

Palin resigned partway through her term, in July 2009.

 

[Conservative]

Might be interesting. Or not.

Howard Dean: Palin Could Beat Obama in 2012

Saturday, 04 Jun 2011 05:09 PM


Howard Dean, the liberal former Democratic National Committee chairman, believes that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in 2012.

Dean says his fellow Democrats should beware of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama would crush Palin in a general-election contest next year, The Hill reported Saturday.

 

[Boo Radley]

Howard Dean: Palin Could Beat Obama in 2012

Saturday, 04 Jun 2011 05:09 PM


Howard Dean, the liberal former Democratic National Committee chairman, believes that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in 2012.

Dean says his fellow Democrats should beware of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama would crush Palin in a general-election contest next year, The Hill reported Saturday.

Well, Dean has a great track record with runnign for president. :coffeepap

 

[Conservative]

Well, Dean has a great track record with runnign for president. :coffeepap

"your" President has a great track record too on the economy which gives any candidate credibility.

 

[winston53660]

Howard Dean: Palin Could Beat Obama in 2012

Saturday, 04 Jun 2011 05:09 PM


Howard Dean, the liberal former Democratic National Committee chairman, believes that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in 2012.

Dean says his fellow Democrats should beware of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama would crush Palin in a general-election contest next year, The Hill reported Saturday.

Suddenly what Dean the screamer says carries weight with conservatives:roll:

:lamo

 

[Boo Radley]

"your" President has a great track record too on the economy which gives any candidate credibility.

Regardless, I wouldn't use DEan here. besides, it's more likley he really wants her to be the nominee. Face it, she's a democrat's dream. :coffeepap

 

[Conservative]

Regardless, I wouldn't use DEan here. besides, it's more likley he really wants her to be the nominee. Face it, she's a democrat's dream. :coffeepap

The Obama record is any candidate's dream as only the kool-aid drinking leftwing loons along with the totally ignorant will be voting for him.

 

[Boo Radley]

The Obama record is any candidate's dream as only the kool-aid drinking leftwing loons along with the totally ignorant will be voting for him.

Some one evoked your name earlier. You might go back and see how your proved them profit.

But you don't dispute me concerning Palin, right? :coffeepap

 

[Conservative]

Some one evoked your name earlier. You might go back and see how your proved them profit.

But you don't dispute me concerning Palin, right? :coffeepap

I don't know who evoked my name nor do I care. As for Palin, she isn't my first choice but will get my vote if she is the candidate vs. Obama. There is no justification for voting for Obama, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Obama will continue to get the Black vote because they will never admit he has failed and the left fits into that category as well

 

[Conservative]

Suddenly what Dean the screamer says carries weight with conservatives:roll:

:lamo

I believe I have been saying this since Obama took office, after almost destroying the private sector, now to get re-elected he has to convince people that he cares about the private sector
Obama Adviser: Private Sector is Key to Economic Recovery

Published June 05, 2011

| FoxNews.com

AP

The Obama administration has shifted from the "rescue phase" to encouraging private sector development to push the economy off the slow burner, one of President Obama's key economic advisers said Sunday, arguing that the latest reports of a faltering economy are not a trend in the making.


Read more: Obama Adviser: Private Sector is Key to Economic Recovery - FoxNews.com

 

[Objective Voice]

What is quite telling in liberal charts is the telling of half the story. Pretty simple question do we have a net job gain and reduction in net jobs lost since Obama took office? Do all those jobs claimed to have been created mean much if the numbers are worse today than they were when Obama took office? What was the cost of creating these numbers and shouldn't they have been greater?

truthful politics » U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party

A review of the charts you linked to tell a pretty clear story indeed. Since 1937, there has been more jobs lost (public or private) under Republican presidents than under Democrat presidents. In fact, job growth has been higher under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents. Moreover, the charts clearly illustrate that President Obama, despite having the deepest number of jobs lost coming into his presidency, has had the fastest turnaround in positive job growth beginning in 2009 leading into 1QFY2011.

Despite your claim that there is "another half of the story to tell," your own source refrutes your claim. The unemployment rate may not have moved below 8.8%, but it hasn't moved much higher than what it was when Obama took office (9.2%; I think the highest rate has been 9.4%. Currently, unemployment stands at 9.1%.)

Of course, your next argument will attempt to focus on "real unemployment numbers"...those who have stopped looking for work, etc. Fine. Use those figures if you think they will help you feel better. But based on the source data you've provided, it's very clear that under President Obama there has been private sector job growth.

 

[pbrauer]

The Obama record is any candidate's dream as only the kool-aid drinking leftwing loons along with the totally ignorant will be voting for him.

:lamo It's strange then, that the Republican electoral are so disatified with the choices so far. What flavor of kool-aid do you drink, Conservative??

 

[Conservative]

A review of the charts you linked to tell a pretty clear story indeed. Since 1937, there has been more jobs lost (public or private) under Republican presidents than under Democrat presidents. In fact, job growth has been higher under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents. Moreover, the charts clearly illustrate that President Obama, despite having the deepest number of jobs lost coming into his presidency, has had the fastest turnaround in positive job growth beginning in 2009 leading into 1QFY2011.

Despite your claim that there is "another half of the story to tell," your own source refrutes your claim. The unemployment rate may not have moved below 8.8%, but it hasn't moved much higher than what it was when Obama took office (9.2%; I think the highest rate has been 9.4%. Currently, unemployment stands at 9.1%.)

Of course, your next argument will attempt to focus on "real unemployment numbers"...those who have stopped looking for work, etc. Fine. Use those figures if you think they will help you feel better. But based on the source data you've provided, it's very clear that under President Obama there has been private sector job growth.

That is total and completely dishonest since we have three equal branches of govt. What the hell does Congress do in your world?

There is a reason that the unemployment rate isn't moving much because discouraged workers aren't counted and that number is huge nor are others who have lost their unemployment benefits. Now if you want to try some intellectual honesty then I will be here but posting this kind of typical partisan bs doesn't help your credibility. What the hell do you expect to happen if you spend over a trillion dollars, no job growth? Some people simply continue to drink the kool-aid

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

So I take it that given the choice between Obama and Palin you will vote for the one that is increasing unemployment, reducing employment, increasing the debt, spending more of our GDP on govt. and making more people dependent on the govt? Although my vote won't matter because obama has no chance of winning TX I will be voting for Palin given that opportunity.

Between Obama and Palin, I vote for Obama. Palin is a quitter. As far as their records on unemployment, unemployment in Alaska rose by 29% during her first 28 months in office compared to 17% under Obama; so by that measure, it's just another reason to vote for Obama. Unlike you, I'm in a swing state, so my vote will matter.

 

[Wake]

Yes, I think the menu of candidates are stagnant.

So....

...boring.

Sorry, but it is what it is.

 

[Conservative]

Between Obama and Palin, I vote for Obama. Palin is a quitter. As far as their records on unemployment, unemployment in Alaska rose by 29% during her first 28 months in office compared to 17% under Obama; so by that measure, it's just another reason to vote for Obama. Unlike you, I'm in a swing state, so my vote will matter.

So the unemployment rate in Alaska was higher than the national unemployment rate? There you go with percentage change again, try spending percentages at the grocery store. I can see your compassion for the 15 million unemployed Americans. When has any Republican had that many unemployed Americans?

 

[pbrauer]

Here is the real story from The Paul Revere House,

On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local “Sons of Liberty” committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row “by sea” across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching “by land” out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).

On the way to Lexington, Revere “alarmed” the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. “Noise!” cried Revere, “You’ll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!” After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.

​

 

[Objective Voice]

That is total and completely dishonest since we have three equal branches of govt. What the hell does Congress do in your world?

Deflection...

Your argument wasn't against Congress. Your argument was against U.S. presidents since 1937. That's the reference source YOU provided. Let's focus on the statistics from the reference source YOU linked to and not deflect from the position you attempted to rebutt which was private sector job growth was better under Republican presidents than under Democrat presidents include President Obama.

Your source tells a completely different story.