With the vast wasteland that is the GOP 2012 field of contenders
Posted By: sm on 2009-01-07
In Reply to: The vultures have destroyed this woman enough. - Get over her... and worry about Obama instead.nm
don't expect her to come out from under the microscope anytime soon. Nailin Palin will become a national passtime at least until then. It is helpful to document anything and everything along the way so that patterns of behavior and subsequent analysis can be backed up with concrete data, not smear, innuendo and baseless accusations. Pretty much, that's how elections are won, or lost, depending on where you're coming from.
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
as opposed to the vast wasteland of one (Obama) demigod in 2012...
This whole thread is a vast wasteland of
nm
but I'm sure the vast majority believes
that life begins at conception, however, I know I'm not going to change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.
oh yes -- the vast media conspiracy
to hide the TRUTH from the American public!!!!! That's rich. You're mask of sanity is slip-slip-slipping. PAY NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain - we at Faux are the ONLY media you can trust! Really. . . we mean it . . . we would never deceive you . . . we have Rove, Morris, Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity . . . a virtual treasure trove of impartial commentators.
The vast majority of mass media is liberal based.......
you have to ask yourself WHY does one need to pass a law for diversity in media ownership. ANY American in this country is allowed to own/manage media without bias on race, gender, or anything else. You start opening our American media up to foreign countries (which is what this entire law is about and you have to understand why) and you have started opening a flood gate of foreign interpretation as to what they consider "free" speech. Foreign intervention into our media is a definite no-no. Why do you feel foreigners need to run our media. They are already involved enough but we should never allow our media to run by foreign entitites.....common sense should dictate why.
In case you don't get the picture, you want a communist China company to run your local TV station? What exactly do you think would happen then?
GET A CLUE!!!!
Almost there. Unfortunately, like everyone else in my field sm
and other fields, I have to work twice as hard for half the money I made 10 years ago. The lovely government has outsourced the other half of my work to the Indians.
you know in my experience in the MT field I have
than those that have 15+ years of experience in the MT field. It depends on the person and how they handle the knowledge they have...
Left field is right!
nm
Did ya ever think it could be a school field trip?
Most high school kids don't get a chance to see a presidential until they are of voting age.
I don't put any faith in anything MSNBC writes or talks about. They are are for the O.
The playing field has never been more level!
Thanks to affirmative action, white heterosexual males cannot get jobs especially when competing with a person classified as a minority. Mintorities get college scholarships and acceptance into good schools so universities can meet their quota. It's ridiculous! There is a black man in the White House --- I think affirmative action has done its job!
It's time for everyone, no matter their race, be treated equally. The best PERSON for the job should get the job. The best student with the best transcipts should get the admission letter and scholarship. There shouldn't be quotas to fill. NOBODY should get preferential treatment anymore!
Just leveling the playing field...(sm)
I thought it was about time for a left wing post to balance out those gazillion posts from the right. You think its garbage because its from the left -- about the same thing that I think about posts from the right.
As far as Rush goes, it doesn't much matter if you aren't ga-ga over Rush because obviously those republicans that actually have a say in govt are very much ga-ga over him. You did catch Michael Steeles' apology? Priceless.
gt I wouldn't stand in the middle of a field
in a thunderstorm, because I'm afraid you've got karma of your own coming.
You're parents may have not been bigoted or judgemental but I believe you have more than made for what they didn't have. It's said their child has to be so mean, hateful, and bitter.
No the b!t*$ has a name and it's gt.
On a level playing field that would be correct...
this is not a level playing field. I don't see her encouraging Obama to do town hall meetings with McCain...and after 18 months running for the #1 seat, he just this past month sat down with someone who was not in the tank for his candidacy. You really don't see how lopsided this is? Obama being inteviewed by the lambs and the left wanting to feed her to the wolves.
School vouchers would even the playing field.
Obviously, you've never had a child in the public school system in a large city.
Vouchers would serve to level the playing field for those of us whose children's schools have gone down the tube thanks to the influx of "at risk youth" (probably the most overused term in existence).
When a public school gets a FAILING grade on their 'no child left behind' (another bogus waste of taxpayer money) progress scores, those kids are allowed to transfer to another school.
Then guess what happens. The school all those inner-city kids are bussed to gets a FAILING grade the next year. So, it's a big fat wad of BS that 'at risk' youths are 'at risk' because they don't have ACCESS to a decent education. From my personal experience, and those of hundreds of thousands of other moms around the country, they simply drag the good school down to their level.
My daughter used to go to an A-rated public high school. Then the 'ghetto school' (the name the STUDENTS called it, so don't rip on me about it) failed for its fourth year and all these 'students' were shoved into the A-school. I guess someone thought they weren't getting their fair shake, and all that was needed was to put them in the 'good' school.
I'm sure you know what happened. That first year, there were countless disruptions for weapons on campus, drug activity skyrocketed, the campus became a 'lock-down' school where all kids' backpacks were searched, teen pregnancies went through the roof (on purpose, which makes me sick) and the students' grades plummeted. The A-school subsequently received Fs each consecutive year.
The kids who ruined their own school didn't give half a drip about learning anything. They slacked off in the back of the class, mouthed off to the teachers, and made it impossible for anyone to learn anything, as the teachers became wardens rather than instructors to deal with the disrespectful little delinquents.
My daughter is now home-schooled. Yet I still have to pay income tax and county 'school tax' for the little monsters who invaded it and ran it into the ground.
And it has nothing to do with color, before you get all high and mighty on me. My daughter's school was a pretty even mix of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic before AND after the forced bussing. It's about the 'culture' of the kids that came in. To them, hip-hop culture is the only way to live. Gangstas and ho's - that's the ultimate career goal in their minds.
So let's not pretend that vouchers are undesirable. That's a fat, steaming pile of B.S.
Throwing money year after year after year at kids that simply aren't interested in learning is what really drags down the system.
School vouchers would even the playing field.
Obviously, you've never had a child in the public school system in a large city.
Vouchers would serve to level the playing field for those of us whose children's schools have gone down the tube thanks to the influx of "at risk youth" (probably the most overused term in existence).
When a public school gets a FAILING grade on their 'no child left behind' (another bogus waste of taxpayer money) progress scores, those kids are allowed to transfer to another school.
Then guess what happens. The school all those inner-city kids are bussed to gets a FAILING grade the next year. So, it's a big fat wad of BS that 'at risk' youths are 'at risk' because they don't have ACCESS to a decent education. From my personal experience, and those of hundreds of thousands of other moms around the country, they simply drag the good school down to their level.
My daughter used to go to an A-rated public high school. Then the 'ghetto school' (the name the STUDENTS called it, so don't rip on me about it) failed for its fourth year and all these 'students' were shoved into the A-school. I guess someone thought they weren't getting their fair shake, and all that was needed was to put them in the 'good' school.
I'm sure you know what happened. That first year, there were countless disruptions for weapons on campus, drug activity skyrocketed, the campus became a 'lock-down' school where all kids' backpacks were searched, teen pregnancies went through the roof (on purpose, which makes me sick) and the students' grades plummeted. The A-school subsequently received Fs each consecutive year.
The kids who ruined their own school didn't give half a drip about learning anything. They slacked off in the back of the class, mouthed off to the teachers, and made it impossible for anyone to learn anything, as the teachers became wardens rather than instructors to deal with the disrespectful little delinquents.
My daughter is now home-schooled. Yet I still have to pay income tax and county 'school tax' for the little monsters who invaded it and ran it into the ground.
And it has nothing to do with color, before you get all high and mighty on me. My daughter's school was a pretty even mix of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic before AND after the forced bussing. It's about the 'culture' of the kids that came in. To them, hip-hop culture is the only way to live. Gangstas and ho's - that's the ultimate career goal in their minds.
So let's not pretend that vouchers are undesirable. That's a fat, steaming pile of B.S.
Throwing money year after year after year at kids that simply aren't interested in learning is what really drags down the system.
Mabye because this post is WAY out in left field
Try to stick to the subject, okay?
Here's what I would like to see by 2012
1. Get rid of the electoral college. It's obsolete and completely out of touch with its constituents now. It was necessary when it was instituted - the country was young with a large portion of its population being illiterate, without the technology for communication we have today, etc.
2. No more presidential candidates/elections. Let's put all the issues on a nation-wide ballot and vote. Decide what we, as a nation, want to do about all of the national issues.
3. Once we have our voted decisions on the national issues, hire a President to carry out what the nation has decided to do. Provide the criteria to be realized for a successful employment scenario and what would constitute failure in the role. Maintain the right to terminate for failure. Bonus for success. No bonus, no severance pay for failure. Charges for corruption.
I'm done.
Playing both sides of the field in case she gets in power...sm
Big business 101.
oops typo, *Not Without My Daughter* (Sally Field).....
xxx
Not really shocking....she wants to run again in 2012.
No one knows how they are going to vote. No one knows what they are saying behind closed doors, although they give Obama lukewarm support to the public. I would not be surprised if they vote for McCain. Would not surprise me at all. Would not surprise me if they are, in unseen ways, subverting Obama's cammpaign.
And then again, maybe Bill is being honest and really feels that way. It is true, McCain has always acknowledged global warming and climate change, much to the dismay of many of his colleagues, and he does have a better record on it than Obama does. McCain has never toed the party line, and that is one of the things I like most about him.
I'm with you! Arnold 2012!!! (nm)
*
Schwarzenegger 2012!!!
LOL!!!
We WILL have an election in 2012 - that is what most go by
The audacity to automatically assume Obama will serve until 2017 is what is going to get you in trouble.
Since you don't understand the simple concept let me explain it for you. Please read slowly so you can grasp reality.
Since America has had it's first president we have had elections every four years. Therefore, seeing as we have just had an election in 2008 and Obama takes office in 2009, our next election will be in 2012.
Your antics and rhetoric of just assuming that Obama will be in there for a second term I would say is a bit premature. Let's let him at least get sworn in and see what kind of a job he does as president. A lot can happen in four years. If he survives then in four years he can think of running again. If Bill Clinton had done half the stuff he did in his second term when he was in his first term he might have not had a second term. We don't know yet if Obama will be keeping his campaign promises or what kind of President he will be.
Here's some reality for you. Obama may turn out to be an absolutely fantastic president. We can all hope for that. So...he could turn out to be a good president and then again he may not be a good president. We won't know until after he has served in the role. Also, you are assuming that because GW was not a good president that every single other living republican would not be a good president and that is just not true. If you believe that then you have a very distorted viewpoint of politics. There are some very good republicans and there are some very good democrats. Just like there are some very bad republicans and there are some very bad democrats. Obama is too new and we don't know what category he falls into yet.
The truth of the matter is that we WILL have another election in four years. Which means the republican party has got four years to really get it together and pick someone that is decent to run against whoever the next democratic nominee will be, whether it is Obama or if he doesn't last whoever else they are going to put in there.
Also we have the congress/senate/house to think of - you know all those people who vote on issues and who have gotten our country in the trouble it is in now (I'm not blaming either side alone - there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides). No, sorry to burst your bubble but GW didn't crap on this country all by his little ol self. The people in the senate who vote on issues did that. So...if for the next four years we see a continuation of the decline of our country, America will probably say, enough with the democrats, we need to bring back a republican president. Not very many people are keen on the idea that every single thing is now being run by one political side. We do need a balance to our government.
One other factor to think about is all the people that Obama is appointing to his cabinet. I'm seeing on this board by a lot of posts that there are a lot of people who, while they are enthusiastic and excited that Obama was elected, they are way not excited that he keeps bringing the old Clinton people back and people who have no experience. Those were the same people who made a mess of things back then and now he's bringing them back in. What he owes them I have no idea but for him to campaign that he is the ONLY candidate who can unite the two parties and he will hire both sides to evenly balance things, that is the first campaign promise he has broken.
Lastly, without any doubt there are some scandals looming about. These are not fabrications. It's just the truth. People he was involved with and are still involved with. Who he owes favors to, the BC thing (whether or not it will get resolved is another story). There is just too much to be ignored. I do understand the loathing that people have for Bush and they would have rather elected a dog rather than another republican, therefore most were saying, so what and tried to bebunk a lot of the issues, however, the issues are real and will not be going away. Not saying that GW doesn't have his share of issues, but I'm not writing a post about GW. Anyway...with the issues that Obama has, one just doesn't know what the next four years will bring for us.
So, taking all that in account, a better approach would be to just say you hope Obama is a good president (as we all do because we want to see our country succeed) and in four years if he turns out to be good then he will be up for re-election. However to just say that its a fact that he will be in for 8 years is a bit arrogant (and nauseating).
Of course there will be an election in 2012
and with the GOP ensconced in this kind of denial and its party still in shambles, the results are a foregone conclusion. Thus, the 2929 count continues. The OP is the only prescription the GOP has to even hope to have a noticeable presence in 2012.
2012 candidate
A possible candidate. I hope so.
http://draftsanford2012.com/
None of this will matter after December 2012 anyway.
and the bickering goes on and on and on, until when? Till 2012?
Good night !
I seriously hope she's not campaigning for 2012.
I think that would be a huge mistake on her part. I think she over-estimates her popularity.
Sorry - "...will be running for office in 2012". SM
We must throw the current residents of Washington out of office, including this loony-left total disaster of a President, his cronies, and also the folks on the other side of the aisle who have become entrenched in power and have been no better in representing the middle-of-the-road Americans who by far constitute the majority in this country.
Let's CLEAN HOUSE!
In 2012 none of our votes will matter, if anyone
The signs will be obvious and the end will be eminent. You should worry less about politics and more about your soul, as should we all.
I'm becoming more hopeful by the day. By 2012, the chickens
...a lot of voters will have lost their enchantment with the "idea" of voting for a President on the basis of his race or his superficial, glib mannerisms. In fact, if the Democrats themselves continue on the path they're starting to follow, I'm not entirely sure he'll be renominated!
The press can't change any of this, either. About 80% of the American population doesn't even watch the evening news on any of the so-called "main" networks.
American undeveloped nation by 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqW1-aA5aMg
Did he decide to cancel the 2012 election? (nm)
*
If Palin pursues prez bid in 2012, lies matter.
All of them. Vigilent watch on Obama is the order of the day and pervades dialog on this forum. Doesn't hurt to start the SP watch now, document it well and be prepared.
and I read that McCain failed to endorse her for 2012 in an interview - nm
x
Nope, 4 years 11 days (1471 days or 1383 til 11/4/2012)
You do really need to learn how to count until 11/4/2012 or 1/20/2013.
Also, sorry to hear in four years you won't care anymore.
|
