Cynical Nation

"Palin pursued a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules and raised taxes on oil and gas companies." (USA Today)


She certainly hasn't been perfect. I deeply disagree with the tax hikes on the oil and gas industry (it makes our Comapnies LESS competitive in the global market), but I like her professed views (even though I support FIRST trimester abortion)...not a major issue this election.

Of the FOUR candidates left in the race, she's the closest to my views and the closest to being "an average American."

The Gawd 'n' Jeezus crowd is energized beyond belief because Palin is another sub-average IQ "end times" moron JUST LIKE BUSH.

The woman is dumb, corrupt, and completely inexperienced.

Hey, she might well be the second coming of Ronald Reagan after all!

"The woman is dumb, corrupt, and completely inexperienced."

That qualifies her as a strong leader in the republican party of today. She is marginally educated, but she comes across as totally illiterate. And, I agree with you, her IQ is below room temperature. Similar to Bush's.

Do you guys ever wonder why the "Gawd 'n' Jeezus" crowd wants nothing to do with you and your candidates?

That's a little encouraging at least.

"The Gawd 'n' Jeezus crowd is energized beyond belief because Palin is another sub-average IQ "end times" moron JUST LIKE BUSH." (Barely Hanging)


Barely's BACK!

Yeah!!! And BW agrees with him!....OK, no surprise there.


"Do you guys ever wonder why the "Gawd 'n' Jeezus" crowd wants nothing to do with you and your candidates?" (WF)


Funny story, WF, over 80% of Americans are religious people....including an increasing number of Democrats (ie. Heath Schuler). In fact, only 43% of Democrats identify themselves as "Liberal," less than a third of THAT number "extremely Liberal"....including the likes of Barely and Blue.

I have been reading many takes on how Palin governed. Apparently, she let go, when elected governor, of many of the social issues she initially tried to push when elected as mayor.

That said, I haven't personally observed her career on my own. Much of what I have found out greatly concerns me. Perhaps these are unwarranted concerns, but you know what? In a few months, she could be second in line to be President.

Call me hysterical but I feel I have been given far more time to get a handle on Obama as I have given to vet Palin. Yes, one is on the top of the ticket and the other isn't.. still they both could become President, especially considering the advancing age of McCain.

This apparently is the battle plan for McCain.

1. Nominate someone for VP who most voters don't know.
2. Limit access to her so voters don't get to know.
3. Call people hysterical for focusing on the VP when they try to get to know.

Hey we got an article that says she governed from the center in the eighteen months she has been governor! So move on, keep going, nothing to see here.

>...I feel I have been given far more time to get a handle on Obama as I have given to vet Palin.

That's typically the way it works. I also feel like I've been given more "time" to vet Obama, but I feel it has come to little. After a year, I still don't have a handle on the guy. How's he going to vote on the next FISA bill, for example? I honestly have no idea.

Moreover, I think the media has, in this short time, done more real "vetting" of Palin than they have Obama the entire year. I don't see, for example, the NYT or WaPo sending reporters to Chicago to pore over every single expense report Obama ever signed off on. If they had treated the other candidates in similar fashion, there would be less resentment on the right than there currently is, but I happen to think a certain amount of it is justified.

PE, can you name even three positive things about Joe Biden aside from the plagiarism scandal(whooops...that's not good), his relatively undistinguished stint in the U.S. Senate and that he's a "lapsed Catholic,"....oh yeah, and that he was widowed the day before being sworn in years ago and as a single-Dad, no one suggested HE stay at home with his kids and forego the rigors of elective office?

I'm curious that's all, since most people don't seem to know all that much about Biden either, despite his being around awhile and having had a rather ugly and ill-fated run for the Dem's Presidential nomination back in 1988 Primaries and was hardly a blip on the radar screen in the 2008 Primaries.

Bottom-line, the MSM has not done any harsh criticism of either Biden (this cycle) OR Barack Obama who has even less experience (NO executive experience) than Palin.

In fact, Sarah Palin's lack of experience highlights Obama's own, doesn't it?

After all, they were both elected to higher office in 2006 and both served in local office right up to Januray of 2007!

The experience meme really works out this way; IF Palin's lack of experience makes her unfit to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, then surely Obama's even more severe lack of experience (same amt of higher office experience and NO/ZERO executive experience) makes him even more UNFIT for the top spot."

JMK,
Let me explain to you once and for all what is the difference between Obama and Palin. It is all mathematics:

Palin's I.Q. = Bush's I.Q. + 1

Obama's I.Q. = Palin's I.Q. x 4 = Bush's I.Q. x 4 + 4.

That's the difference.

Well, for one thing, IQ is highly over-rated, BW.

Nixon at 142 had a higher IQ than virtually every other 20th Century President.

By comparison Mohammed Ali had a 108 IQ.

Who was a more admirable character?

Who was more charismatic?

Who changed the world more?

For ANOTHER, Barack Obama's "intellect" (such as it is) does not impress me all that much. I can't see how it impresses ANYone.

After all, if he were smarter than Palin, would he hold to the very SAME view as she on admitting BOTH Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO? A view that most Liberals now claim "might lead to war with Russia,"???

Would he oppose drilling on U.S. lands, for some of America's currently estimated 2 TRILLION Barrel oil reserves, especially when that drilling WOULD (according to recent Congressional reports) bring in some $2.6 TRILLION in oil leases to the government over the next ten years?

Barack Obama's positions don't impress me as "well thought-out" at all, nor based on reason or intellect. He comes off to me, as a Mohammad Ali-type - very glib, and in Obama's case LESS creative and spontaneous, although far better at parroting views he gets from the likes of Dave Axelrod, Jerry Wright and James Meeks.

And by the way, that "new math" is out now-a-days. I mean it's silly.

Using your own calculations, I get, JMK's IQ = (BW x Barely Hanging's) to the 4th power.

Even I (and I'm very proud of this huge brain of mine), see those calculations as grossly over-estimating both mine and Barack's respective IQs.

Besides, EXPERIENCE has been the mantra BW, NOT IQ!

And as to experience, I think you'd agree that IF Palin's lack of experience makes her UNFIT to be "a heartbeat away" from the Presidency, then surely Obama's even more severe lack of experience (same amount of higher office experience and NO/ZERO executive experience) makes him even more UNFIT for the top spot."

That looks like a problem for the Obama supporters, doesn't it?

I mean that experience meme is tough to refute, isn't it?

Nixon's opening to China put a wedge in the communist bloc and essentially meant that holding the line in Vietnam was no longer relevant to our national security.

And, oh by the way, Obama came to the Senate in 2005, not 2007, and you forgot to mention that Obama is secretly Batman and that he saved Gotham City from the Joker, among other accomplishments.

I'm waiting for my 10,000 word answer where JMK proves that Obama is not Batman. :)

So you're saying that Barack Obama has two years more experience in "higher office" than Sarah Palin? Hey! I really didn't mean to short-change him on that PE. My error. Though I'm sure ou'll agree that it's an easy mistake, considering he hasn't done much in the Senate.

But, we're not going to argue that THAT "makes him more experienced than, say Palin," are we? I mean, that's a pretty weak argument, wouldn't you agree?

This election will be noteworthy for at least one thing for certain - it will see ONLY the third Senator elected President since 1900.

I believe the other two were Warren Harding and JFK (ironically enough, BOTH died in Office) and neither one of them were particulalrly good, or even effective Presidents, and I say that despite the fact that I very much approve of Kennedy's rabid anti-communism and his Reaganesque tax-cutting while in Office.

I believe that since FDR only two Presidents (Ike and JFK) were elected who WEREN'T Governors or sitting VPs before being elected President.

For better or worse, Sarah Palin has more executive experience than any of the other three major Party candidates running this cycle!

In fact, "one day's experience as Governor or Mayor would," as Guiliani correctly noted, "be more executive experience than any of the other three."

Can I take it that you too couldn't name three positive things about Joe Biden? Admittedly, I know I couldn't do it either.

I honestly didn't mean to upset you, or grate on your nerves......but at least it's not a total loss for you, as at least you've apparently found a new friend in the harmlessly deranged but well-meaning Barely Hanging, who apparently wants to be JMK the way many twelve year-olds want to be Kobe Bryant or Derrick Jeter.



BTW, thanks for the flattery Barely.....I suppose I can understand a short, heavyset schoolteacher from Michigan admiring a dashing, athletic, smoke-eater from the South Bronx.

Hmmmm, maybe I can post a few action photos on my blog....

....Geeeez! What am I thinking?! You KNOW, you're flattery is really swelling my head big time Barely...it really is.

At any rate, you KNOW I'll always be batman in your eyes Barely, and I know it too.

JMK.. I think highly of Biden. (Just because I don't respond to you doesn't mean I agree with you.)

There's a difference between "thinking highly of someone" and being able to name three positive things about them, PE.

Biden's an inveterate liar, which seems to be a character issue of some import to you.

His "youthful (plagiarism) indiscretions aside, his recent claim to being a "devout Catholic" brought indignation from both Denver's Bishop, as well as those in PA.

Why couldn't Biden simply admit that he is a "lapsed Catholic" or non-practicing Catholic, like I am? Actually, I don't claim to be a Catholic at this point.

If you disagree with fundamental Church Doctrine, you are de facto no longer a Catholic, "devout" or otherwise. Apparently Senator Biden has the same problem with that "sanctity of life" doctrine that I do....OK, perhaps I have a wee bit more of a problem with it, but he's certainly got one too, though he can't seem to admit it.

Bottom-line, those here are pretty much set in their views and their votes.

I'd figure BW, and yourself and most likely Fred, as most Liberals will, will pull the lever for the most Left-of-Center candidate available, just as I will reliably pull the lever for the most Conservative candidate available. BNJ seems more Conservative/Libertarian (with an emphasis on Libertarian) than not, although I believe Barry, and Rachel as well, are more independent and less ideological than those others named.

We (you, I, Fred and BW) seem pretty set in our ideologies. In fact, I'm sure that BNJ, Rachel and WF are also set in theirs, as well, even if not always in their votes.

That doesn't mean we can't exchange opinions and views. It merely means it's highly unlikely that any of us are going to change our ideologies at this late date. If nothing else, it is interesting to exchange views with those we disagree with.

On a bright note, 60 Minutes re-ran its incredibly positive bio of Justice Antonin Scalia tonight and I was impressed over how fair they were and how struck by his incredible intellect they were (as am I).

In a sense, that sort of thing defines where we stand as individuals, at least from an ideological perspective.

I, not only agree with Justice Scalia on almost every major issue, I agree with him that those who believe in such things as "a living Constitution" (ie. Justice Ginsburg) are (or at least CAN be) "nice people who believe extremely wrong things.

Generally ideological Conservatives revere the likes of Scalia and revile the likes of Ginsburg, while ideologically Leftist people tend to revere the likes of Ginsburg and revile the likes of Scalia.

As to the "Biden Challenge," I can name three postive things about Obama; (1) he's open-minded (he's changed his views on drilling, supports Georgia and the Ukraine's entry into NATO, etc.), (2) he DID ultimately renounce his associations with Reverend Wright's Church, which embraced Farrakhan and preached anti-America and anti-white hatred and (3) he's a dapper dresser and a fine orator.

I can do the same for Palin; (1) she took on the Big Energy Companies in Alaska and actually negotiated a deal far more beneficial to the people there than had her predecessor, (2) she has reliably Conservative and pro-traditional values views on the issues and (3) she hunts and vehemently supports the 2nd Amendment....I could also add that she's charismatic and is a fine orator in her own right, but that would be piling on.

I think anyone could do the same for John McCain (his Military service, his bipartisanship and his increasingly Conservative stands, etc.)

But I just can't do the same for Joe Biden...I was just wondering if anyone else could either.

And if you'd re-read that post, I DON'T assume you agree with me, I assume (and I believe correctly) that neither of us could come up with three positive things about Sen. Joe Biden.

And as I said, I couldn't blame you....I found it very difficult to do. I believe that he was ranked, after Barack Obama (#1) and Ted Kennedy (#2) the third most Liberal member of the U.S. Senate, with John Edwards 4th.

There's a difference between "thinking highly of someone" and being able to name three positive things about them, PE.

Biden's an inveterate liar, which seems to be a character issue of some import to you.

His "youthful (plagiarism) indiscretions aside, his recent claim to being a "devout Catholic" brought indignation from both Denver's Bishop, as well as those in PA.

Why couldn't Biden simply admit that he is a "lapsed Catholic" or non-practicing Catholic, like I am? Actually, I don't claim to be a Catholic at this point.

If you disagree with fundamental Church Doctrine, you are de facto no longer a Catholic, "devout" or otherwise. Apparently Senator Biden has the same problem with that "sanctity of life" doctrine that I do....OK, perhaps I have a wee bit more of a problem with it, but he's certainly got one too, though he can't seem to admit it.

Bottom-line, those here are pretty much set in their views and their votes.

I'd figure BW, and yourself and most likely Fred, as most Liberals will, will pull the lever for the most Left-of-Center candidate available, just as I will reliably pull the lever for the most Conservative candidate available. BNJ seems more Conservative/Libertarian (with an emphasis on Libertarian) than not, although I believe Barry, and Rachel as well, are more independent and less ideological than those others named.

We (you, I, Fred and BW) seem pretty set in our ideologies. In fact, I'm sure that BNJ, Rachel and WF are also set in theirs, as well, even if not always in their votes.

That doesn't mean we can't exchange opinions and views. It merely means it's highly unlikely that any of us are going to change our ideologies at this late date. If nothing else, it is interesting to exchange views with those we disagree with.

On a bright note, 60 Minutes re-ran its incredibly positive bio of Justice Antonin Scalia tonight and I was impressed over how fair they were and how struck by his incredible intellect they were (as am I).

In a sense, that sort of thing defines where we stand as individuals, at least from an ideological perspective.

I, not only agree with Justice Scalia on almost every major issue, I agree with him that those who believe in such things as "a living Constitution" (ie. Justice Ginsburg) are (or at least CAN be) "nice people who believe extremely wrong things.

Generally ideological Conservatives revere the likes of Scalia and revile the likes of Ginsburg, while ideologically Leftist people tend to revere the likes of Ginsburg and revile the likes of Scalia.

As to the "Biden Challenge," I can name three postive things about Obama; (1) he's open-minded (he's changed his views on drilling, supports Georgia and the Ukraine's entry into NATO, etc.), (2) he DID ultimately renounce his associations with Reverend Wright's Church, which embraced Farrakhan and preached anti-America and anti-white hatred and (3) he's a dapper dresser and a fine orator.

I can do the same for Palin; (1) she took on the Big Energy Companies in Alaska and actually negotiated a deal far more beneficial to the people there than had her predecessor, (2) she has reliably Conservative and pro-traditional values views on the issues and (3) she hunts and vehemently supports the 2nd Amendment....I could also add that she's charismatic and is a fine orator in her own right, but that would be piling on.

I think anyone could do the same for John McCain (his Military service, his bipartisanship and his increasingly Conservative stands, etc.)

But I just can't do the same for Joe Biden...I was just wondering if anyone else could either.

And if you'd re-read that post, I DON'T assume you agree with me, I assume (and I believe correctly) that neither of us could come up with three positive things about Sen. Joe Biden.

And as I said, I couldn't blame you....I found it very difficult to do. I believe that he was ranked, after Barack Obama (#1) and Ted Kennedy (#2) the third most Liberal member of the U.S. Senate, with John Edwards 4th.

I can come up with many positive things to say about Joe Biden. I just don't feel a need to continue with this. If I answer this question, you will come up with another challenge and then say if I don't answer the next challenge it's because I agree with you. It's a game you play and I'm not playing.

I don't play games PE.

I state my own opinions clearly and when I make assertions, like income tax rate suts INCREASE tax revenues, I'm always prepared to back those statements up.

It's not a "game" to expect those with more Liberal sensibilities to be willing to do the same.

As someone who has long ago tired of arguing anything with people who clearly are never going to change, I still find myself occasionally baffled nonetheless.

(Hence this post.)

Up until recently the warcry was Obama’s lack of experience. Now you’ve got a VP candidate who’s experience amounts to 6 years as the mayor of a town of roughly 7,000 people. To put this in perspective I checked the population of the town I grew up in, an average suburb in Morris County NJ. The population there was about 16,000.

So that means that my town mayor has more experience (after all he’s been mayor forever) with the exception of the past 18 months Palin has spent as governor.

Does my mayor have more executive experience than Obama? Sure, Obama’s never had to make the hard decisions that my mayor has, like….well for the life of me I can’t even think of one. I know a lot of people and to my knowledge not one of us has ever voted for mayor…in fact he typically runs unopposed. Because it’s just a fluff job.

And the elephant in the living room of course is McCain. The next time someone reminds me that Palin has more executive experience than Obama, I’d like to remind them that she has that same edge on McCain, yet somehow he’s on the top of the ticket..if her executive experience is so invaluable why isn’t she on top?

Once again it’s just another example of how so many people’s standards are conveniently uneven.

>Once again it’s just another example of how so many people’s standards are conveniently uneven.

I don't think mine are. I'd like to see both Obama and Palin have more seasoning before they become president. But he's at the top of the ticket, she's not.

“Up until recently the warcry was Obama’s lack of experience.” (GZ)


That sounds great, but of course, it’s untrue. Funny story - actually, the McCain camp didn’t attack Obama on his lack of experience, as they knew that that would only be seen as “racist” by various nitwits in the MSM and might actualy hurt him. They also decided early on that experience alone wasn't going to win this election.

The closest the McCain camp came to that was the Paris Hilton ad and the other ads around that time (early August) that derided Obama as a celebrity, rather than a real, full-time politician. That was NOT an attack on Barack Obama’s “lack of experience”, it was an attack on his overall lack of substance.

Admittedly that was funny stuff and a good time was had by all, that is, it seems there were no hard feelings either way. The Obama camp didn’t appear to take any offense to that barrage, as far as I’m aware. So that was seemingly all “good natured ribbing,” nothing more.

I for one have long said that “there’s no such thing as political experience,” meaning POSITIVE political experience – it’s generally experience in thievery in all cases.

Hell, New York’s own Carolyn McCarthy proved years ago that a lack of experience and a total lack of substance does NOT make one less politically viable.

McCarthy’s husband was killed and her son permanently disabled from Colin Ferguson’s “LIIR massacre” and Ms. McCarthy didn’t take the common sense lesson that “If one other person had had a gun on that train, Ferguson probably wouldn’t have gotten more than a few steps into his rampage before being brought down.”

No, an illegal alien goes on a killing rampage and Carolyn McCarthy blames – the GUN! Not illegal immigration (as I did), NOT the fact that the deranged Ferguson, who’d been arrested just weeks previous should’ve been in a mental hospital or a prison...or perhaps most aptly of all, a morgue, NO, this Long Island housewife ran and won on a platform that blamed GUNS.

Still, neither McCarthy’s lack of any stellar education credentials, her lack of any relevant work, or eeven political experience outside the home DIDN’T (in my view) make her “too inexperienced” or in any way “unfit” to run for public office. I mean how is Jon Corzine (a former Goldman Sachs broker) or Al Franken (a failed comedian) any more FIT to run for office than Carolyn McCarthy...or any other common citizen for that matter?

The answer is NONE of the aforementioned people are either MORE or LESS FIT based on background alone. I believe that McCarthy, Corzine and Franken are all UNFIT based on the fact that NONE of them have ever been able to make a case for their own professed ideology (Liberalism). Although, to be fair, the last person who ever made a cogent appeal in defense of Liberalism was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Politics, in my view, ideally SHOULD be a retirement activity. There’s really no such thing as “political expertise,” as Ms. McCarthy clearly proves, “ANYone can do it.” Ideally, retiring laborers and small business-people should run for political office to “take a break from the years of non-stop work they did." You get to see a bit of the world and hob nob and jib jab, etc. Not a bad way to spend one's golden years.

At any rate, it’s a person’s views and judgment that makes them fit/unfit.

For that reason, Conservatives are always going to vote for the most Conservative candidate and unfortunately Liberals will always vote for the most Liberal candidate, simple as that...except that the ideological divide is colored by the increasingly common view that “Liberalism is an emotional disorder or disturbance,” but that again, goes to personal judgment, not background, like fancy Colleges, local political experience, etc.

What Palin’s nomination really did was make "experience" OFF LIMITS for BOTH sides in this race.

The fact that various Obama-supporters in the MSM and elsewhere have taken it upon themselves to bring the issue up has opened up the door to comparisons that clearly don’t favor Barack Obama.

He has NO executive experience at all and he hasn’t got much more time in higher office either. Besides, he hasn’t DONE much of anything while in the Senate!

The fact of the matter is, that the Obama camp itself has tried to get its surrogates to get some of their mentally and emotionally challenged supporters to back-off this losing tact, but so far, to no avail.


“The next time someone reminds me that Palin has more executive experience than Obama, I’d like to remind them that she has that same edge on McCain...”

Wait! Are YOU saying what I already did many times throughout theses posts and elsewhere?

I THINK you are!!!

Once again, I get to say, "ironically enough," just a few posts above (September 14th), I presciently said, “For better or worse, Sarah Palin has more executive experience than ANY of the other THREE major Party candidates running this cycle!” In fact, I added a Rudy quote that is also undeniably true - “In fact, one day's experience as Governor or Mayor would,” as Guiliani correctly noted, “be more executive experience than ANY of the other THREE.”

OK, so you agree with me...wouldn’t be the first time.

After all, you’re generally a very sensible guy. One I’ve NEVER make any truly Liberal arguments, which shows very good judgment on your part, in my view.

I think you’d also agree that the “experience” issue is not a winning one for the Obama camp (they certainly seem to know it isn’t), as it ultimately shakes out to this, “IF Sarah Palin's lack of experience makes her unfit to be ‘a heartbeat away from the Presidency,’ then surely Obama's even more severe lack of experience (a few months more in “higher office” with virtually nothing to show for it and NO/ZERO executive experience) makes him even more UNFIT for the top spot.”

So, let’s stop quibbling over side issues like “experience” and get to important issues, like, “Who’s the MOST Conservative/most sensible (they’re generally synonymous) candidate in the race?”

MISSING WORD: "After all, you’re generally a very sensible guy. One I’ve NEVER seen really make any truly Liberal arguments, which shows very good judgment on your part, in my view.

Oh, and I seriously mean that as a compliment GZ.

For the life of me, I'll never understand why the northeast and other major urban areas, places where Liberalism has failed miserable (ie. David Dinkins in NYC) seems to generate so many people who apparently don't think things out.

Reining in government is met by idiotic non sequitors like, "You're against food inspections and Civil Courts?!"

No, we're against excessive government intervention and intrusion and making government streamline and do more with less.

Do we need as many judges as we have now?

Why do many schools have more than one teacher in the room at the same time - one grizzled Nun handled 56 kids just fine a few short years ago.

We're awash in bureacratic waste and we really can't afford it.

To your credit, you haven't been one to make the argument for more government...and that at least runs counter to the MSM's pablum.

I didn't mean you Baz, I disagree with you on Palin, however you're not one of the guys who's trying to say that her time as Mayor of a hamlet counts as great experience, while still denouncing Obama's exp.

And JMK - some things never change, somehow you need to take 10,000 some odd words to speak to one sentence. :)

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time at the moment.

I will say this - it certainly is true that everyone was piling on Obama for his lack of experience. Everyone doesn't mean you or McCain specifically, it's a general trend that we both know exists among the talking heads.

Palin has a smidge more executive experience, let's be honest. Her time as a mayor doesn't really count, and her time as governor has been brief - and Alaska is not exactly a powderkeg of activity.

I do agree that politics should be a retirement activity, I'm tired of career politicians. I suggest we reduce the salaries, eliminate the pensions, give them all the same type of helath benefits that the rest working americans have, and enforce strict term limits - I'm not exactly a Biden fan anymore than I am McCain - both of them have been in the Senate far too long. I don't think the founding fathers intended to create these type of career politicians at all, if we didn't have them things might actually get done. So I agree with you there, but Palin doesn't exemplify this at all - she only seems like an everyman because she's new to the game, but she plays it same as the rest of them.

As to being liberal or conservative....I'm really neither, I'm just sensible. There are times where a liberal approach is needed, and times when a conservative one is better suited. The problem is really in execution. Obviously the most extreme liberal position - a marxist society - is unworkable. However there is a need for us as a society to help those among us who REALLY can't help themselves. The eternal trick is to help them while keeping out the freeloaders.

The only case where I am really of an extreme liberal opinion is healthcare. I don't believe anyone should ever be turned away even if they are a complete drain on society. The problem is that to get there our system needs to be changed radically. When I was a kid healthcare wasn't the way it is now - the problem is that there are too many middle managers in between the doctor and the patient. They all take a piece of the pie.

The problem with everything is execution - and the problem at the heart of that is career politicians who ultimately don't have excecution as a primary interest.

I don't have much time right now either and I have a very long day tomorrow (leaving early in the am and won't be getting back in until after midnight) but the problem with those in government is very similar to the problems with those who are currently on the boards of most major corporations...and ironically enough, some of them are the same people OR close surrogates.

Vernon Jordan (of the Carter administration) was on the Boards of several major U.S corporate entities for years.

THESE are the people who lavish huge windfalls on losers who bankrupt corporate entities and do real harm to the economy...they are also the same people who ALWAYS seek new reasons and rationales for government to "get involved."

I've said many times, I DO very much oppose a government-managed or run healthcare system UNLESS there is an option provided for those with the means and the desire to buy better private insurance coverage.

Obama, like Hillary have borrowed Mitt Romney's "Romeny-care" plan, which I don't mind at all, despite it's fiscal failures in the Bay State.

The Obama/Romeny plan mandates that ALL those who don't qualify for either Medicare or Medicaid purcahse their own private medical insurance. What that "plan" does, is, in effect, make health insurance as legally mandatory as auto insurance.

It, in effect, LIMITS/restricts CHOICE.

Some regulations do that.

Under Romney/Obama-care, a 24 y/o BW would HAVE TO purchase insurance UNLESS he qualified for Medicare or Medicaid.

Look, I've said all along, I'd EVEN support a "bare-bones" government-run healthcare system as long as there was an option for those with the motivation and the means to buy supplemental insurance to bypass all the rationing and restrictions that came with the bare-bones system.

My feelings/sympathies on this matter are with EMPLOYERS and NOT so much with the people.

Our employers SHOULD NOT be providing over 85% of the nation (92% when illegal immigrants are factored OUT) with tax-free, full covered health insurance.

Any honest observer of this race has seen that from the start Barack Obama has NOT been grilled or investigated by the media and his many questionable associations are troubling to say the least....Biden was not grilled at all and he too has a long past filled with embarassing forays into plagiarism and other shady dealings...for that matter, McCain hasn't had his life fully investigated either, BUT Palin has undergone a scrutiny that NO ONE in recent memory has gone through.

The one bright spot in all that is that it's highlighted the blatant Liberal-Democratic bias of the MSM....that much is really undeniable.

P.S. "you need to take 10,000 some odd words to speak to one sentence" 9GZ)


Wrong again, and I'm not intending to hurt anyone's feelings with this, but generally, limited people tend to think they can transmit a lot of information with few words and no visual aids....that's a common perceptual mistake.

The brief posters here, are brief, in almost all cases, because they don't have much to say and little information at their disposal. I'm just being honest in saying that.

I supply a lot of information and links to go with them....the critique of "Too many words," is as vapid and insipid as the King of Austria (in the film Amadeus) telling Mozart that "the trouble with your piece is that it has too many notes."

Again, that's long been an honest observation on my part and I'm not being flippant or deliberately offensive in stating that.

Ironically enough your two posts totaling 725 words are second to the post of mine you referred to that totaled 991 words.

So, there's THAT.

"Ironically enough your two posts totaling 725 words are second to the post of mine you referred to that totaled 991 words. (GZ)


That fact is still inexplicable to me...why you (who is NOT a short, one-sentence) poster would defend those who are.

Your not a lazy or flippant thinker and yet this tendancy defends those who are.

It's "ALMOST" as inexplicable as Fred (a self-proclaimed Conservative) always feels compelled to defend his fellow Liberals and challenge Conservatives (for being "too dogmatic" and oh yeah, the best one ever - "posting opinions as fact," when this Conservative NEVER does that and nearly EVERY Liberal poster here HAS...funny stuff) at nearly every turn....OK, that's a LOT LESS inexplicable as Fred's really NOT a Conservative by any stretch, he just thinks that's a cute way to make an argument (ie. "Look, I'm ONE OF YOU!...and even I can see that Liberalism works better.")

So, I while GET Fred's rather transparent act, I really don't understand why you'd defend flippant, lazy posters, when you rarely, if ever engage in that yourself.