Sarah Palin

[lawrencea]

I like her! She is her own person, she doesent owe anybody anything. With Obama rise in politics so fast , how many favors does he owe.

[MSOsr]

Originally Posted by Banacheq

I try to keep a level head about this stuff and when I see things that sound fishy, I investigate myself. Snopes.com is usually a good place to start if you're looking to find out it something people are touting is based on fact or rumor.

Here's a perfect example: snopes.com: Quotes from Sarah Palin

I, like many on here I assume, am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

I tend to lean conservative mainly because I don't prescribe to the idea of income redistribution. I believe in personal responsibility and that I can make wiser decisions about my healthcare and retirement than the government can.

As for Palin, like all the candidates, she has her pros and cons. She definitely did not perform well in the Couric or Gibson interviews - at the same time I lost a lot of respect for Gibson and his smug attitude and for Couric and her apparent desire to embarrass Palin. If the person you're interviewing doesn't answer a direct question when twice asked, what's the point of asking a third time?

But the quotes have to be true! The mainstream media said they were!

Couric's questioning was asinine; when Palin said McCain stepped up in 2006 and called for more regulation of Freddie and Fannie, Couric asked, "When else has he done that?" That's like, "OK; you predicted 9/11 and warned about it before it happened, but what else have you predicted?"

Better question: When has Obama ever stepped up against his party? When has he ever been right about the surge or any other foreign policy matter?

I think instead of worrying about Palin somehow getting into the White House, we should worry about someone just as inexperienced STARTING OFF IN THERE.

Great readers of teleprompters don't necessarily make good leaders. I would prefer someone who has proved himself to be a leader.

Mike (would like to keep more of my money also)

[razr007]

Originally Posted by Milarsky

Do you think she waxes with purple wool foam or cross cut yello foam pads? I'll bet she likes Zaino.

jm

well i heard she uses purple foam pads and loves zymol so watch out lol

no but for real she is good to have in office if micky d messes up the real problem is obama does not have the experience needed in a time of need which we are in now mCcain does ,both have there good and bad but hey lets not go on who is nicer or who looks better or who is younger or older ,we need to go on who can make a real change for the real people not the rich dogs of the world

if mCcain messes up she will make a great fall back to help the us but if obama messes up his backup is not that good and will cause more problems

but know one thing that is true to the end and will last forever in history if obama gets in it can go only 2 ways...

one he will be the 1st black president to fix this country period.
OR
two he will be the 1st black president to mess this country up period.
now that is alot of pressure if you ask me on one guy

hey just my opinion i maybe wrong we will see in the near future.....

[Picus]

Originally Posted by MSOsr

Couric's questioning was asinine; when Palin said McCain stepped up in 2006 and called for more regulation of Freddie and Fannie, Couric asked, "When else has he done that?" That's like, "OK; you predicted 9/11 and warned about it before it happened, but what else have you predicted?"

Well, not exactly. I may be wrong, but I think the question was as a result of Palin bringing up McCains warnings to congress. Palin said that he warned congress two years ago, so Couric asked her what other example she had of McCain recommending more regulation. It seemed like a perfectly valid question at first. I don't think she should have pushed it either, but the original question made total sense. If Palin is going to bring up McCains warning two years ago infer that he wanted more regulation on Wall St, then a good interviewer would be remiss not to mention that he promoted less regulation in the 24 years prior.

So ya, she wasn't asking what he'd predicted, she was asking when in his voting past had he voted for more regulation other than that one time.

[Flashtime]

She is purdy.

[sweetlou]

Yes she is a governor of the largest state, but population wise, its the fourth smallest at over 600,000. Wow that is a lot of experience, definitely enough to lead a country of 300 million! I think it was a risky decision by McCain but a smart one nevertheless. It's unbelievable how much media attention she's garnered for a vp nominee. Her claim of opposing the bridge to nowhere was also quite impressive . O well, its between McCain and Obama, not Palin v Obama

[calgarydetail]

shes a mavrick... who dosent like a mavrick?

on a side note, this has nothing to do with her as a person or a politian, it dosent effect my view of her.. but in she remindes me of someone from Fargo (the movie)

[Setec Astronomy]

She's got great legs and she's absolutely the only candidate on either ticket I would go to bed with!

[Banacheq]

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

She's got great legs and she's absolutely the only candidate on either ticket I would go to bed with!

I'll second that.

[MSOsr]

Originally Posted by Picus

Well, not exactly. I may be wrong, but I think the question was as a result of Palin bringing up McCains warnings to congress. Palin said that he warned congress two years ago, so Couric asked her what other example she had of McCain recommending more regulation. It seemed like a perfectly valid question at first. I don't think she should have pushed it either, but the original question made total sense. If Palin is going to bring up McCains warning two years ago infer that he wanted more regulation on Wall St, then a good interviewer would be remiss not to mention that he promoted less regulation in the 24 years prior.

So ya, she wasn't asking what he'd predicted, she was asking when in his voting past had he voted for more regulation other than that one time.

The call for "deregulation" was premised on the idea that the market itself will make necessary corrections. What McCain and others saw happening with Fannie and Freddie was that the government was "mandating" the market act a certain way, contrary to good business sense.

The request for more regulation of Freddie and Fannie was because of the tampering with the market, subjecting the economy to great risk in an effort to "level the playing field".

Deregulation is still the way to go; just don't tamper with the market and prosecute those that do (like Franklin Raines and others who cooked the books).

I think this whole economic debacle shows that "redlining" wasn't racist; it was economically sound policy.

Mike (notes that Obama has more trouble remembering such things than Palin does)

[salty]

The naughty librarian look works for me.

[Bunky]

Originally Posted by MSOsr

I think this whole economic debacle shows that "redlining" wasn't racist; it was economically sound policy.

I disagree about redlining. The idea that if you lived in a certain zip code you could not get a decent loan even with good credit is not right. I will let others use harsher words about what to call this practice.

The fannie mae/freddy mac mess is not the sole cause of our mess. The fact that instituions only had to hold like a small percentage capital to cover risk of debt was the real crisis (something like $1 for every $30 of debt). Then other investment banks would buy this same debt and loan against it even more amplifying the effect.

Had they had sufficient, prudent reserves ("economically sound policy"), they could have covered a lot more with reserves and not collapsed so quickly rather than the run on the banks/investment firms that occured when all this debt went bad.

It was not homes sold to people under the home encouragement programs (Community Reinvestment Act) that were solely responsible but general loans and commercial loans too. There were a lot of risky loans and the FM/FM was not involved in a lot of them. The economy slowed down, a lot of people could not pay their debts, and when it came time to cover the losses the financial had no reserves.

The bottomline was credit was too easy since banks loaning dropped their reserve requirements on carrying debt and using these debts almost like money (selling loans to each other) made it worse since the risk was spread through several banks making the same risks.

Easy credit was encouraged by almost everyone since it kept the economy afloat since the tech bubble burst and 9/11.

Palin? I could not see talking to Putin with tha wink in the eye and saying "I can see your country from my state".