Palin won't admit the real reason they lost
Posted By: Mrs. M on 2008-11-12
In Reply to: GIVE HER A BREAK -was trying to say. - Hey, at least she knows we have 50 states.nm
A lot of it was because McCain showed poor judgment in choosing her... now she chooses to blame the Bush regime. She will never get far in politics. She will be on Fox news. You wait. But I know, you all, I said Obama was going to win and you kept saying no no no and so obviously i am a little smarter than the rabid republicans on here.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Yeah...almost asridiculous as yours, I admit...so shall we cease and desist and stick to real issues
nm
No, my real reason was to point out your duplicity. Which I did.
Have a nice day!
Did you hear the real reason why Obama
not our country, but for his kids to have much more than he had. He wanted his kids and ours to have a better life. Sure, nothing wrong with that, but it was not for you or me, economy, "where is my check in the mail?", keeping our country safe, and among many other things.
so many attack - no real reason AND no positive info on Obama
The more McCain/Palin's ratings are going up, the more the democrats are panicking, and the attacks about Palin are becoming more vicious - AND nobody is posting anything positive about Obama, like "I'm really excited about his health care plan or his energy plan or his housing fix plan or 100 other reasons we should be voting for someone. No, nothing positive about him...AND I'm not even hearing anything negative against McCain's plan. It's just vicious rumors, lies, and conjectures about Sarah Palin. Let's see. I've heard she hunts, she's for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq, she has a tanning bed, her daughter's pregnant, she didn't answer questions the way you would answer them (which in all fairness to her the interview was a bait & trap situation - especially when half the country was asking "what part is he asking her about?"). So for all those who say she didn't get it, neither did half the country (but those must be the people who cling to their guns and religion). Let's see...what else. She's selling her baby on e-bay, the father of her daughter's baby is skum, she believes in God, etc, etc. Oh yes, the best one was someone didn't like her because she is pretty and was in a beauty pagent (although I can't decide whether that is the best or that someone believes she was selling her baby on e-bay). Yet you refuse to list any of her good qualities like she cut out pork spending, she balanced the budget, she stands up to the big guy, she gave refunds to all Alaskan citizens who paid too much in money to the oil executives, she's smart about energy and she's for drilling here in the states (which will cut our gas and oil prices in half), and the numerous other good things she has done. I've heard she's not experienced (but you won't admit that neither is Obama). Then of course when someone posts something positive about her you jump down their backs and are just really nasty. And then what kind of comments do I hear about McCain? He doesn't use the computer (someone was actually complaining about him not sending out emails himself on September 11th), and someone else was making fun of him because he doesn't comb his hair. I hear that and think that there are people who have small minds. He can't do either because he was beaten without mercy and he can't lift his arms up to do these activities (and you have the audacity to make fun of him for that?) But you know what? At least he can still put his hand over his heart when the pledge of allegience is being said and the national anthem is being played.
You know, if your going to say something negative about someone at least have a comeback with something negative that is halfway intelligent and counter it with something positive from the candidate you support.
And for petes sake, use John McCain's real name, not the phony acronyms you like to use. He was in a POW camp for five years beaten til near death every day. He's earned the respect to at least call him by his real name. Whether or not you hate him so much, he is not Bush and he is not more of the same. His policies and voting record proves differently. You can't say he voted the same as Bush because Bush doesn't vote. Anything that's been voted on that you want to blame Bush for you need to take a look at the democrat congress. Their the ones voting, and its the democrats who have stopped the impeachment hearing for Bush. Why???? McCain's policies, health care plan, his reform plan, his economy plan, and everything else about what he will do when he becomes president is different than what Bush has done. Bush is Bush, McCain is McCain. If anyone is to be compared to Bush it would be Obama because the people who are directing Bush are also the same group that is directing Obama.
So, can we please be civilized adults, and come up with hard facts before accusing one candidate of something that is obviously false. Stick to issues and no rumors.
One more reason I like Sarah Palin....
....I betcha she makes a mean batch of cookies...
(and I won't say who doesn't, but I'm sure you all know)
Honey, no one trashes Palin for 'no reason' - there are
One reason is because Sarah Palin's his running mate
x
I think that's the point of Palin's posts -- The real
nm
I only lost $1000 so far-Hubby lost $2000 in a week (sm)
so, I called his financial advisor yesterday and told him to put hubby in a "safe" plan. It's now in a money market fund that is part of his IRA.
I have no choice. I have to stay where I am. I have no "safe" available. Neither of us will be able to retire on what is now in our 401Ks and you're not the only one. We couldn't buy a car with Both our 401Ks, let alone live on it.
We are late starters for retirement not until our late 40s funds (most of our employers did not offer pensions). We are now of the first retirement tier and although we own our home outright, if we live until we are 90, there is no way we can live off retirement 401Ks or SS.
My husband's father told him back in the 50s that we would experience something like what is happening today and stated it would be worse than the ཙ crash. It is sure starting to look that way, but we will survive some way, I hope.
We need to pray for the people on SS now that cannot survive. I, for one, would love to help them, but can't help ourselves at this moment.
No, goofy. Republicans are REAL people, real
nm
If the real folks, with real hope, faith, and
and for our country's future who participate here on this forum were just a tad as healthy, wealthy and wise as this poster considers herself, we probably wouldn't be sitting in front of these silly computers trying to make a living!! Can't figure why she is here other than tell us how healthy, wealthy and wise she is and we are not!
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
You can't admit the war was
I am not sure I would admit that if I were you. nm.
nm.
I believe one has to admit..
to his wrongdoing (we know how hard that is for W ) first and then repent. I do not see W doing either of those things. The only thing he can pull out of his hat to say he would do differently is use different language, like bring 'em on, dead or alive. That's it !!!!! Until he recognizes, owns up to and asks for forgiveness I don't think he'll get it. You do have to go and sin no more.
They will not admit anything except
IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!
BUT, they will NEVER admit that but will just
nm
yes and I bet if they would admit it, sm
many of those who voted for him would like to see him out of the White House now!
You have to admit...
that even if you don't like what they're saying, they are making people think about what the government is doing these days. I wish Beck had been around when Bush was in office - maybe some of the anger against congress would have shown up a little sooner.
You have to admit...
that even if you don't like what they're saying, they are making people think about what the government is doing these days. I wish Beck had been around when Bush was in office - maybe some of the anger against congress would have shown up a little sooner.
I will admit that there are
so-called Christians who use their religion to try and control the lives of others while they do as they please. These people definitely give others a bad name. However, don't group all of us into that. There are truly some wonderful Christians who do walk the walk and talk the talk. So please be respectful. You don't like to be stereotyped anymore than we do.
I will admit that there are some
nuts as evident by the man who shot Tiller.....but not anti-abortion people are nuts. Excuse us for caring about the life of a child that could survive outside of the womb but isn't given the chance. Once again, you liberals are more concerned about the treatment of terrorists than the innocent lives of babies and yet you have the balls to say we are nuts. Give me a break.
Sarah Palin fans are as whack as Palin.
Even John McCain's top adviser referred to Sarah Palin as a whack job.
At least have the cajones to admit when you do something.
You posted the article above as a racial post and you shot the finger. We all know it. Someone might think you are lying.
at least you admit it was dirt
....and you obviously are not able to follow simple rules of courtesy and good manners in addition to the rules of this board. It seems your need to deride, disdain, mock and make fun of the liberal posters on a liberal board is something that you cannot control. You might wish to ponder at some point why you feel the compelling need for cruelty. It does not win us over, but rather is a very poor advertisement for your far right-wing beliefs.
As far as who I am, I am the same as every other poster - anonymous with a made-up moniker. It is NOT a good idea to post our real names on a public forum and I would advise you or anyone else against it, unless you have an extremely common name.
I am intolerant. I admit it.
I am intolerant of a great many things. I am most intolerant of lip service. My intolerance comes from living a life of seeing human life belittled, stepped on, and twisted by those who feel superior to others and that behavior being justified because of their beliefs, and most horrendously, in the name of their god. Yes, I do call myself a pagan now. God and I parted ways a long time ago.
I apologize to you. It seems that you have chosen a noble cause. I, however, cannot fathom how or why one can have so much compassion for one piece of humanity or human life and not another. If the children in your eyes need help the most, then how can you possibly justify the war in Iraq, or any war for that matter, is purposeful when they are dying by the thousands? Or worse, maimed for life. I do not see much balance in that.
I am going to chalk it up to perhaps that is the nature of conservatism. Or perhaps it is a lack of empahthy?
Spin the words all you want. Your posts may be written to illustrate a point of view, but with a great deal of superciliousness. I am not the only one with this belief. Others have tried to point it out as well. Perhaps they're just better at it than I am.
I call things the way I perceive them, and I don't sugar coat it and I won't apologize for it. But for the sake of propriety, I shall resist the temptation.
well...at least you admit it. You hate....
an entire block of people you don't even know who had nothing to do with Katrina or how it was handled...simply because they are Republican.
Geez.
surprised to see Mc admit
that the US tortured prisoners. He said we won't ever torture prisoners AGAIN. He stood around and allowed that to happen -- he the man who wants all to remember his pow experience?
Even I will admit that KO is extremely
biased toward Obama. Have you see McCain in the Membrane? But I do enjoy his humor. I often wonder though, who has to pick up those papers off the floor after he throws them at the camera?
They don't want to see the truth or admit the
truth because if they did they would have to admit that Bill Clinton, outside of Jimmy Carter, was the worst president this country has ever had....and now, they are so stupidly blind that they think Obama is going to bring "change" but it will be a change that no one can stomach or live with. All I can pray for is that there will be a second American Revolution and that we the people, under the law of the Constitution, can and will form a new government, one that is not corrupt and one that has not one DEM in office!!!
I admit that I am not black.
I guess you could say I have not walked in a black person's shoes. However, don't for one second think that I have never felt racism. I've seen the glares and dirty looks aimed in my direction by black people. I've given smiles to strangers who instead of smiling back would glare hatefully at me. I've said, "I have a nice day," to people who have either given me a dirty look or turned their back to me.
I was at a hospital visiting my dying father when I left with my son to get something to eat. My son is very young and has a developmental delay. A black mother and her daughter walked onto the elevator with us. My son, not knowing any better, looked at the little girl and commented that she was brown. Without even thinking I said, "Yes she is. Isn't she beautiful!" The mother gave me the dirtiest look.
If he screws up - I will admit it, but ....
I don't see that he did anything wrong. Traditionally, maybe the meetings are kept secret - but nowhere is that a written rule. And Obama did not go to the press and repeat his conversations, an aide anonymously released the information.
In my opinion, he was discussing things with his advisors and someone overstepped their boundaries releasing information. Maybe that person should be fired because they are not going to be able to be trusted?
However, I for one like to know what is going on in my country and the fact that no sensitive information was released makes it okay with me.
Obama is not perfect - he even said himself that he knew he would make mistakes. He is a HUMAN. I expect people to mess up. But remember also, he ran on a platform of change and maybe being honest and open with the American public is how he is going to begin that change.
I admit I am surprised at your age.
I think the majority of the older people realize what is coming. "Conspiracy" isn't exactly such a bad word for it.
Can you really not admit that there is a bias?
If this guy had done this same piece but insert Obama's name instead of Palin's, not one of the liberals would have had anything to say about it except praise. Yet when it's Palin, you all want to talk about "oh she's whining, she needs to grow up, etc". What needs to happen is that the media needs to get their lips off of Obama's bum.
I really can't wait until the day the media starts picking him to pieces. And it will come. One thing about affairs, eventually the fire burns out. The media will need something new and hot eventually.
you freely admit that you don't
know why she left. Your "Sue Ann" worship is more sickening than the admiration of Obama who has actual character attributes and accomplishments to admire - not just some little mind that agrees with yours. Grow up.
I will admit that I am afraid, because
and what he states is no different than how the Arab leaders make their speeches.
I actually did admit a retraction above
too bad you think not agreeing with you equates to "screwing up" -- Look above, other people feel the same way. Sometimes it's hard to see the trees through the forest.
They are such hypocrites, but may never admit it,
nm
First Time I saw you admit
Thank you.
I'm in too. I admit I tend to just
In part because it seems that some people respond to who is posting and not what they are saying. But I am game for giving it a fair go. It only seems fair that we level the posting playing field and accept cyber-responsibility for what we post here.
Mrs. Bridger would never admit that. She's
content having her head up her backside. :)
Admit what? Your rhetoric?
BTW, brush your teeth - your breathe stinks - I know where your head has been.
okay - you got me there. When I'm wrong I'll admit it
I was serving in the US Army when Ronald Regan was president. While I didn't actually see a lot of what was going on, as soldiers we were told to support our commander in chief no matter what and as soldiers we were not entitiled to have an opinion (at least one we could voice in public). We were soldiers first and never were to say anything bad about our president. That's the way it works in the military and if you do say anything you are brought up in front the general. What I do remember was being around a lot of the officers who really liked him and always said good things, therefore I assumed he was a good president.
Looking back I have to admit I forgot about the incidents you brought up.
So I correct my last statement. I don't trust any politician and I can't remember the last time a president was truthful or a presidential candidate actually did what he promised to do once he got in the white house.
Thanks for the reality check.
Oh jeeze, admit you are pro-Obama
Instead of spewing this crap. McCain is not and never has been a Muslim, and they would love to get Obama in there. Think about it. :)
Thx Amanda - They won't admit (see message)
when their wrong. They keep trying to argue a mute point. I think Stardust is a racist for assuming I'm a white person. I don't know how much clearer you can point something out. It's like talking to a wall. I also don't know how I could be a racist when I voted for him in the primaries. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Well I'm not going to read anymore of Stardusts posts anymore. Not worth my time since she won't even stand up and admit when she's wrong, and she grasps at anything. Calls me a racist and says I said racist things and then tries to claim it's something I said after she posted that message. Just not worth my time.
Thanks again Amanda for your message. This board sure is infiltrated and its getting more and more sickening to her the attacks on McCain & Palin while giving Obama and Biden a free pass. They attack M/P and then say that the conservatives do all the attacking.
Man-o-man I can't wait for the election to be over.
Most people who voted for the O will never admit
they were wrong. Even as they are being led to the camps they will never come out and say they were wrong if they believe they were.
NOW will people admit they only voted for him...
Because he was black?
Are you watching the CNN coverage? It's like the ONLY reason today is an 'historic event' is the color of O's skin. If that's why you voted for him, fine, but at least have the guts to admit it.
Let's not forget that O's family had DIDDLY to do with Civil Rights movement, so there's NO REASON to dub him the new MLK. (CNN just called him 'The Healer' which makes me want to vomit.)
His father was African, not African-American, so he has ZERO claim to the whole 'we've been oppressed for six hundred years' BS. His family was more likely slave OWNERS than slaves.
It's absolutely LAUGHABLE. Is this an innauguration or the BET Awards?
Bash away, haters. Right back at ya.
He is NOT Lincoln. He is NOT Kennedy. He is NOT MLK. Of course, those men all have something in common......
.....they all had more going for them than fabulous PR.
Of course Obama didn't admit to that.
I heard Biden's speech - on MSNBC and then again on Fox. That was exactly what he was talking about.
I was a bit surprised to hear her admit
abstinence probably isn't realistic, but yeah, good for her. Are you thinking her choice to have the baby wasn't entirely her own? I bet she can stand up for herself when she needs to!
Thank you. Then you admit these posts DO belong
Appreciate the support.
It was a JOKE, but , sorry, I have to admit there is some resemblance..sm
I hope I do not get banned from posting this???!!!!
|
