John McCain's VP nominee Sarah Palin

[VictorMoran]

If you violate subpoena it becames a misnomer and you can have jail time if you are called to testify and you are no present.
I can only imagine what the penalty would be for violation of a congressional subpoena.
Apparently the law do not apply to republican officials, we saw how Carl Rove and Harriet Miers took a crap dump on the congress of the United State.
Now we see how the Palin family thumped their nose on the Alaska Congress by disobeying another subpoena in a case of abuse of powers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_ ... roopergate

The Mccain camp is treating the case like a national security crisis, they sent a task force made of top lawyers specializes in international terrorist law.
What is interesting in the case is that in Alaska the republican has a majority.

I guess this shows what to expect in a Mccain/Palin administration, people will come to think the Bush/Cheney where the days of transparency in goverment.
You can see the character of the woman when she is already calling the campaign the Palin/Mccain administration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plwcvFXCHO8

McCain thinks he will be able to govern this country with the support of his party, but he knows his party despises him,
that woman is going to rally the more radical part of the base against McCain and unleash hell on him (maybe I should said heaven)
Radicals like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, and the other FoxNew nutjobs are now behind McCain, but if McCain wins,
he will experience what is like to be under the reticule of the slime machine for the Republican Party. McCain sold his integrity and his principles and now he is doomed whether he wins or loses.

[xavier]

If you violate subpoena it becames a misnomer and you can have jail time if you are called to testify and you are no present.

I would love to see those people fined $500 and tossed in jail -- the high-power Republican legal operatives can tell them not to honor the subpoena, but those jerks aren't the ones that have to serve the time.

I guess this shows what to expect in a Mccain/Palin administration, people will come to think the Bush/Cheney when the day of transparency.

The actions of the McCain campaign in Alaska certainly lend the weight of evidence to Obama's "Bush's Third Term" talking point.

[VictorMoran]

Man Oh man, may God have mercy on us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Yx-RhH ... re=related

After that performance, this one does not sound so bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

[KungFooMasta]

She didn't do too well there.

It would be nice to know the context for the interview, regarding if Palin knew the specific topics discussed before hand. The interviewer asking for specific regulations made by McCain in the last 26 years is a bit unfair, I wonder if this specific person asks all interviewees to site specific instances of actions made by other politicians. The fact that she rephrased the question and pressed on it shows that she is more interested in applying pressure to Palin than hearing her response. (Poorly conducted interview, with motives outside getting information)

On another note, last week I found a short article discussing Palin in the polls, from msnbc, and I was disappointed to see that my comment was not published. Apparently you can only post a comment if it bad mouth Palin in some way. Media Bias for the lose.

[VictorMoran]

Let me see if understand your position.
You have a candidate to the vice presidency of the United States, a person that is running around beating the drums that her candidate is the
better man because he is the one with more experience in state matters, but when asked for a specific example of the experience she does really know what that experience is all about,
and she want to answer with a campaign slogan and even that she gets it wrong, and that does not bother you.

She said that in Washington this week the people where waiting for McCain go and tell then want to do, and McCain cannot even get the 186 republicans to vote in their own proposal.

As I am posting now the country is going down into a recession, because the republicans greed.
When I star to write the post the DOW was 400 down and now is 530 points down. And this woman is going aroudn salling herself with slogans and lies.

[xavier]

As I am posting now the country is going down into a recession, because the republicans greed.

Not sure how you pin it solely on Republicans...unless you are just another fanatical demagogue. I think we've clearly demonstrated to you previously, that the current meltdown is non-partisan in origin.

[KungFooMasta]

...and she want to answer with a campaign slogan and even that she gets it wrong, and that does not bother you.

Yah, I guess if you were under the spotlights with millions of people analyzing your every word, you wouldn't be impacted in any way. I do think she should be more knowledgable with McCains plans, or if she is, she needs to work on public speaking more.

You need to stop with the "slogans and lies" stuff, its pretty baseless and subjective. Unless you want to start posting up the quotes where the lies were made, thats not an accusation you should just throw around and have people take seriously.

[VictorMoran]

As I am posting now the country is going down into a recession, because the republicans greed.

Not sure how you pin it solely on Republicans...unless you are just another fanatical demagogue. I think we've clearly demonstrated to you previously, that the current meltdown is non-partisan in origin.

No, no, no, What are you talking about?
This melt down is the result of polices of deregulation of the free market which is it the core of the republican philosophy.
Do not you remember famous phrases and slogan like?
the Market self regulate?, “The more terrifying words in the English language are I am from the government and I am here to help" Goverment is not the solution Goverment is the problemâ€

[VictorMoran]

Yah, I guess if you were under the spotlights with millions of people analyzing your every word, you wouldn't be impacted in any way.

Wouldn't she be under that spot light of even more people if they win?
we already elected an idiot and we saw how that worked out

You need to stop with the "slogans and lies" stuff, its pretty baseless and subjective. Unless you want to start posting up the quotes where the lies were made, thats not an accusation you should just throw around and have people take seriously.

Don’t you think that saying the Obama plan will raise taxes to people making as little as 42,000 dollar is a lied.
How about telling people and send emails saying that Obama will support infanticide. Or that Obama wants to teach sex education to 5 year old

How about saying I stopped the bridge to nowhere when it was the Alaska congress who cancelled the project and she had no choice but to kill the project.

[xavier]

As I am posting now the country is going down into a recession, because the republicans greed.

Not sure how you pin it solely on Republicans...unless you are just another fanatical demagogue. I think we've clearly demonstrated to you previously, that the current meltdown is non-partisan in origin.

No, no, no, What are you talking about?
This melt down is the result of polices of deregulation of the free market witch is it the core of the republican philosophy.

And as we've pointed out, the deregulation was initiated under one Democrat, and Glass-Steagall repealed under another. Your short-term memory can't be this bad, can it?

[VictorMoran]

Actually It was I who mention the repeal of the 1930’s Glass-Steagall with the Financial Services Modernization Act.
Which is BTW the number one cause that that lead to this catastrophe?
As I recall, I was saying that the shift architect of the bill was the them powerful senator and ex presidential candidate Phill Gramm, which no surprising today is the chief architect of McCain Economic Plan.
You said that Bill Clinton signed the bill, what you failed to mention was that in 1999, bill Clinton was very popular among the people, but he was very unpopular in the republican dominated congress.
Beside weren't you the one who said that it does no matter who the president is, because congress is where power really is, and he is only there to inforce the laws.
Well Clinton was forced to sign Phill Grahamm bill because it passed with a republican majority.
Go back and re read the thread maybe you can refresh your memory .

Also today McCain was taking credit on the agreement of the bailout bill, I was flipping between CNN, Fox and msnbc,
In Ohio, Palin was saying that Mccain showed an example of leadership by suspending his camping and rushing back to Washington to the people what to do.
She was saying that McCain is too honest and that he will not say anything, but the she will say for him.
After that Mccain repeated he own line he stole for the Obama camping “change is comingâ€

[xavier]

Well Clinton was forced to sign Phill Grahamm bill because it passed with a republican majority.

So, they put a gun to Bill's head? And if you read the roll call, you'll see plenty of Democrats who voted for the bill as well.

So once again, your selective perception blinds you to reality.

[VictorMoran]

I believe you are one how is blinded. You think that talking tuff and accusing me instead of addressing the issues you will score points, please stop making stuff up.

Don't you remember all to the political extortions the Clinton administration when trough with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, and their “New contract with Americaâ€

[KungFooMasta]

Mccain showed an example of leadership by suspending his camping and rushing back to Washington to the people what to do.

If I understand that correctly, I would agree that this was a bad move for McCain. He wanted to delay the presidential debates so he could go to washington and help work this out. And as Obama said, the president of the US will need to be able to handle more than one thing at a time. (cannot drop everything for one task)

[xavier]

I believe you are one how is blinded. You think that talking tuff and accusing me instead of addressing the issues you will score points, please stop making stuff up.

I am not making anything up. I've provided evidence for my claims, you have provided none for yours. Nor am I "talking tuff" (sic).

If simply asking that you back up your opinions with some form of reference, is "talking tough", then color me guilty.

[Zool]

Xavier, you are starting to contradict yourself:

They can talk all they want about how they will do this or that with taxes, for example, but as I keep trying to get you people to understand, the POTUS does not levy taxes; the Congress does that. They talk about how "they will create jobs", but unless they plan another WPA or expand the federal payroll, that's also not anything the US Govt is in the business of doing. On regulation of business activity, once again, that is under the control of Congress, not the POTUS.

The President's job is (a) to run the executive branch of the government (which means to *enforce* the laws, not *make* them -- that's a dictatorship)

it's not the President's job to employ people or fix their mortgage problems

And after all these, you place the blame on the democrat president instead of the republican majority congress ?

the deregulation was initiated under one Democrat, and Glass-Steagall repealed under another

[xavier]

Xavier, you are starting to contradict yourself:

They can talk all they want about how they will do this or that with taxes, for example, but as I keep trying to get you people to understand, the POTUS does not levy taxes; the Congress does that. They talk about how "they will create jobs", but unless they plan another WPA or expand the federal payroll, that's also not anything the US Govt is in the business of doing. On regulation of business activity, once again, that is under the control of Congress, not the POTUS.

The President's job is (a) to run the executive branch of the government (which means to *enforce* the laws, not *make* them -- that's a dictatorship)

it's not the President's job to employ people or fix their mortgage problems

And after all these, you place the blame on the democrat president instead of the republican majority congress ?

the deregulation was initiated under one Democrat, and Glass-Steagall repealed under another

Actually, if you read those quotes carefully, in their original context (you're starting to pull a Michael Moore here), you'll see that they are not self-contradictory. Victor would like to lay it all at the feet of the Republicans, as if they are solely responsible for the current mess. I've more than once had to point out to him that Congresses and Presidents of both parties have demonstrated culpability. Nowhere in there have I said the President was responsible; in fact, in the most recent exchange, I think I was pretty clear that it was a Congressional action.

The three quotes of mine at the top, are entirely out of context (the context in which they were originally stated, was in terms of the amount of faith the electorate puts in campaign speech). The last quote, however, was to do with a sitting Democratic President happily signing into law the bi-partisan acts of Congress that Victor still has failed to lay solely on the GOP.

Nice try though.

[Zool]

What do you mean "out of context", doesn't the quotes show that it's your belief that regulation of business activity is the job of congress ?
By your account, why even focus on the fact that it was a democrat president, the political color of the president is irrelevant in this case.

[xavier]

What do you mean "out of context", doesn't the quotes show that it's your belief that regulation of business activity is the job of congress ?
By your account, why even focus on the fact that it was a democrat president, the political color of the president is irrelevant in this case.

And you'll notice, if you actually read what I said, that it was a bi-partisan vote that repealed Glass-Steagall:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354


The fact that it was a Democratic President that signed the bill into law is just "icing on the cake" in pursuit of debunking Victor's claim that "this is all the Republicans' fault".

In other words, I didn't say the President caused this. And again, your set of quotes are taken from two different conversations, and have no bearing on one another.

[Zool]

The fact that it was a Democratic President that signed the bill into law is just "icing on the cake" in pursuit of debunking Victor's claim that "this is all the Republicans' fault".

Ah ok, makes sense.

And again, your set of quotes are taken from two different conversations, and have no bearing on one another.

Hey, it was an honest misunderstanding.
You sound like I was deliberately showing quotes out of context in order to make it seem like you were saying something else.
Who would do something like this man ?

Oh..
http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/10/pi ... pit-bulls/
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... palin.html

[KungFooMasta]

Actually Obama's joke about lipstick on a pig was really disappointing, I thought he was better than that. His remark was flat out name calling, pretty much the same as somebody saying this:

"Obama is a retard."

It's baseless and demonstrates what could be his true nature.

I was checking out msnbc and ran into this link:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 65819.aspx

Again, all of the comments are bad mouthing McCain. I doubt anybody could post something that wasn't a negative comment on McCain. How pathetic can our media get?

[VictorMoran]

Actually, if you read those quotes carefully, in their original context (you're starting to pull a Michael Moore here), you'll see that they are not self-contradictory. Victor would like to lay it all at the feet of the Republicans, as if they are solely responsible for the current mess. I've more than once had to point out to him that Congresses and Presidents of both parties have demonstrated culpability. Nowhere in there have I said the President was responsible; in fact, in the most recent exchange, I think I was pretty clear that it was a Congressional action.

The three quotes of mine at the top, are entirely out of context (the context in which they were originally stated, was in terms of the amount of faith the electorate puts in campaign speech). The last quote, however, was to do with a sitting Democratic President happily signing into law the bi-partisan acts of Congress that Victor still has failed to lay solely on the GOP.

Nice try though.

Please do not act like a typical republican that will try to tell as many people as you can, made up stuff with hope that few will take you at your words without any fact checking.
A republican will tell you that white is better than black, front is better than back, right is better than left, up is better that down, and all kind of clichéd so long they can make a point, and with total disregard of credibility of for the truth.

If you look at the distribution of the votes on the bill,
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml
you will notice that out of 400 member of congress 205 republican voted for the bill, only 16 republican opposed it.
With that count alone the bill would had passed in the house, since in the house a bill only need a simple majority to pass.
If you look at the democratic votes you will see that number of votes count was 139 yes, and 69 no.

Don’t you think that with all of the fire the republican are getting with Phill Graham and Jack Kemp being McCain economics Gurus, and the architect of this debacle,
that if there was a component of truth on what you are saying you will have Fox News running a 24 hour loop blaming Bill Clinton for this financial Meld down?
You are wrong again and you are making stuff up, this was not a bipartisan vote, It was a simple majority party line vote, with the majority plus one republican votes in the house.

In the senate the vote was closer because in the senate many democrat are so called Reagan democrats, people like Feinstein and Lieberman,
but it was still a republican majority that decided the vote, with 44 votes, they only needed 6 votes to make it unilateral.

Ah and BTW today the DOW closed at 777 points down, it is estimated that the economy lost 1.5 trillion dollars, the largest lost in the history of the stack market in a single day.
So much for the republicans acting on behave of the American Tax payer.

[Zool]

Actually Obama's joke about lipstick on a pig was really disappointing, I thought he was better than that. His remark was flat out name calling, pretty much the same as somebody saying this:

"Obama is a retard."

Um.. did you actually read the text in that web page, below the video clip ?
If yes, what part of it do you find untrue ?

And factcheck.org is hardly "out to bad mouth McCain", it unbiasedly debunks ads and statements by both parties.
If you take a look, you will find plenty of debunking done for Obama ads too.

you will notice that out of 400 member of congress 205 republican voted for the bill, only 16 republican opposed it.
With that count alone the bill would had passed in the house, since in the house a bill only need a simple majority to pass.
If you look at the democratic votes you will see that number of votes count was 139 yes, and 69 no.

The democrats voted with 67% approval. The bill would have passed even in a democrat majority congress.

[VictorMoran]

The democrats voted with 67% approval. The bill would have passed even in a democrat majority congress.

Actually not, the democrats could not have opposed the bill even if they all voted against it.
A nuclear majority in the house is 201 votes, and in this particular bill the republican had 205 votes.

You also have to understand that legislator will vote against or in favor of a bill depending on what his or her constituency tell them to do regardless of the effect of the bill to the nation.
This is because some of them are up for re-election, and others are afraid to be voted out of offices, or sometime a bill may affect negatively or positively their county.
but statistically the party with the majority decides the way the vote goes.

[Zool]

Hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxC_Yo4by9w

I'm talking about John McCain's economic policy.. I say this is more of the same.. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.
And suddenly they say, "Oh! You must be talking about the governor of Alaska!"