Palin steps down as governor of Alaska


SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Give Machjo a break YJ, I'll bet that Bush never relied on a teleprompter in order to speak.

That was his mistake, Captain. Bush would have done much better with a teleprompter.

Bush has done incalculable damage to his (Republican) party, and not being able to articulate his message effectively was one of the reasons for it. Because of his inarticulateness, Democrats won most of the PR wars against Bush (remember ‘Bush lied, people died?’), and that helped sink the Republican Party big time.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Ronald Reagan destroyed Jimmy Carter with a simple question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Should Sarah Palin run for President in 2012, that would be the only question she would need to ask the empiest of all empty talking heads, Barrack Hussain "57 States, teleprompter junkie" Obama.

Indeed, Yukon. And if people are really better by 2012 than they are today, if the recovery is in full swing by then (as many economists predict), Joan of Arc will sink without trace.

It really will depend upon how economy is performing at that time. If we have 25 % unemployment and 20 % inflation (as no doubt you and other Republicans fervently wish), Obama is sunk. On the other hand, if economy has started to recover, Obama will win reelection easily. Just look at what happened to Clinton.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Machjo, again that is possible, but she has a lot of work to do before she becomes a viable candidate. She currently has huge negatives (incidentally, Gingrich has the same problem). Unless she can get rid of the negatives and can get people to look at her more favorably, she can forget it.

So how did Bush do it? Maybe Sarah could learn from him? Unless of course Bush did all the right moves by sheer accident, which is likley with him.
 
Machjo
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

That was his mistake, Captain. Bush would have done much better with a teleprompter.

Bush has done incalculable damage to his (Republican) party, and not being able to articulate his message effectively was one of the reasons for it. Because of his inarticulateness, Democrats won most of the PR wars against Bush (remember ‘Bush lied, people died?’), and that helped sink the Republican Party big time.

Would he have known how to use a teleprompter? He was beyond repair.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

YJ - Sarah uses Bluetooth and is less likely to stumble in a speech she didn't write and didn't get a chance to read?

None of today's "TV celebrity" so called politicans break script and ad lib their lies oops lines.

You would think so, wouldn’t you? However, her speech where she announced her resignation from the post of governor was terrible, most commentators thought poorly of it. It was incoherent, rambling, jumped from subject to subject and in general was very amateurish. If she is serious about a 2012 bid, she has to get better speech writers.
 
Machjo
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

You would think so, wouldn’t you? However, her speech where she announced her resignation from the post of governor was terrible, most commentators thought poorly of it. It was incoherent, rambling, jumped from subject to subject and in general was very amateurish. If she is serious about a 2012 bid, she has to get better speech writers.

Or better yet, get on a regular daily reading programme.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#97
By the time Obama is thru with turning the United States into Cuba, - in four short years - the people will be ready to give the bum the heave-ho, along with his stumble-bum VP and the slobbering, Obama-worshipping Congress.

I have to give you credit, Yukon. Of all the conservatives here, you are the only one who has confidently predicted that Republicans will win the control of Senate and House in 2010 and will win the presidency in 2012. I will hold you to those predictions (I have the relevant posts stored on the hard disk and I will tort them out in 2010 and 2012).

Most other conservatives here (like Captain, EagleSmack etc.) simply claim that Republicans are hugely popular; Democrats and Obama are intensely unpopular and leave it at that, without predicting Republican victory. But you have the courage of your conviction. We will see if it is simply foolhardiness.

We will see how accurate your predictions are.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

"Also, even if Barack should prove a disaster for the US, would you honestly want to replace him with someone even more likely to cause further carnage?"

Why not?

Americans replaced Bush with Obama, only to find that all the deficit Bush caused/created has been tripled by their Annoited One in less than a half a year, the biggest financial disater in human history.

But he has charisma.

Yukon, Americans replaced Bush and your beloved Republican Party because they had made a royal mess of the economy and of the foreign policy (in the form of Iraq war). They had complete control of the government for six years (including the control of Supreme Court), so they were totally responsible for the disaster that they caused, they could not blame anybody else. It was right and proper that they were booted out.

The same will happen to Democrats if they don’t deliver. If by November 2010 we have unemployment of 25% and inflation of 20% (as is probably your fervent wish), Republicans will easily win control of the House and the Senate).

IF we have unemployment of 25% and inflation of 20% in November 2012 (as is probably your even more fervent wish), anybody would win against Obama.

That is how politics works. So there is no point in whining because your party lost. Get over it, deal with it.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#99
SJP, making a 'royal mess of the economy' is downplaying it a little, don't you think? The government shot the debt through the roof.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

SJP, making a 'royal mess of the economy' is downplaying it a little, don't you think? The government shot the debt through the roof.

That is what conservatives usually do, Machjo. They talk a good game while in opposition, they promise responsible government, balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility etc. However, when they do assume power, they invariably shoot the deficit through the roof. Indeed, I cannot think of even one conservative leader in recent memory who has balanced the budget (Harper did it for a while, riding on Liberal coattails, but soon he went into deficit, because of his moronic GST cut).

And in this case they couldn’t even blame the mess on the Democrats, since Republicans controlled Senate and the House.

Now Democrats re in exactly the same position, they control everything. If things go sound, they have nobody but themselves to blame.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#101
--

Fascinating. According to this, the Debt-GDP ration since the 1940's grew under only three presidents, the beloved Ronald Reagan and the Bush family. No wonder the US people liked Reagan: he was spending like a drunken sailor creting jobs and false prosperity for everyone! Scary thing is, the second Bush outdid even the spendaholic Reagan!
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Could Mr. Shwarzenegger hold a high level cabinet post in a Republican run
Palin Presidency, being born outside of the USA???

Yes as long as he is not inline to become the President.[/quote]



That doesn’t sound right, ironsides. Does that mean that a foreign born US citizen cannot become Speaker of the House, or Leader of the Senate? They are both in line for President (Speaker is second in line, after Vice President).

But that is an interesting point. The succession line for President is very long maybe 15 or 20 long. Does that mean that everybody in that line must be a US born American citizen? E.g. Senator Byrd is President pro tem of the Senate. He is fairly high on the list, may be No. 4 or 5.

Does that mean that President pro tem of the Senate cannot be a foreign born US citizen? Or does it mean that if ever it comes to him assuming presidency, he cannot do it and the presidency would go to the next one in line?

If so, the same thing may apply to vice president as well. A vice president may be foreign born. However, in the case of death of the president, the VP then cannot become the president; it will have to be the Speaker of the House.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

--

Fascinating. According to this, the Debt-GDP ration since the 1940's grew under only three presidents, the beloved Ronald Reagan and the Bush family. No wonder the US people liked Reagan: he was spending like a drunken sailor creting jobs and false prosperity for everyone! Scary thing is, the second Bush outdid even the spendaholic Reagan!


Machjo, the conservatives are forever bragging about how their Messiah, Reagan rescued the economy and ended the recession. What they omit to mention is that he did it on borrowed money. He went on a spending spree to stimulate the economy; he did exactly what Obama is doing.

And many conservatives have done that, Reagan, the two Bushes, Mulroney, Mike Harris, now Harper etc. As I said, conservatives talk a good game, but when they assume power, their economic performance is almost invariably lousy.
 
Kreskin
Avatar
#104
Palin is an odd one. During her resignation speech she claimed that people who put their heads down and stick it out through times like hers are quitters. The non-quitters are the ones who step aside and let someone else take over.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

That is what conservatives usually do, Machjo.

Please put an upper case C in that word. A true conservative is fiscally conservative too. They are not conservatives, but spendaholic imperialists. They couldn't care less if they have to bust the budget to achieve their goals.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

They talk a good game while in opposition, they promise responsible government, balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility etc. However, when they do assume power, they invariably shoot the deficit through the roof. Indeed, I cannot think of even one conservative leader in recent memory who has balanced the budget (Harper did it for a while, riding on Liberal coattails, but soon he went into deficit, because of his moronic GST cut).

Again, a true conservative focuses on reducing government spending first, with tax reductions following suit; not the other way around. Please write it with an upper case C, or in the US, an upper case R.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Now Democrats re in exactly the same position, they control everything. If things go sound, they have nobody but themselves to blame.

From what I understand, the New Democrats in some provinces are proving to be more fiscally conservative than their federal Conservative counterparts. What real conservatives ought to be looking at is supporting independents. Just compare André Arthur, an independent MP (--) to any federal Conservative MP, and it just doesn't compare. He's a self-professed Libertarian, yet even the federal left could likely agree with at least some of his ideas and at least not perceive him as an imperialist threat.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Machjo, the conservatives are forever bragging about how their Messiah, Reagan rescued the economy and ended the recession. What they omit to mention is that he did it on borrowed money. He went on a spending spree to stimulate the economy; he did exactly what Obama is doing.

And many conservatives have done that, Reagan, the two Bushes, Mulroney, Mike Harris, now Harper etc. As I said, conservatives talk a good game, but when they assume power, their economic performance is almost invariably lousy.

Again, you're confusing conservatives with self-professed conservatives.

Now though I don't agree with how Obama is spending like a fish, I will say that at least his spending is more likely to make a return on the investment than Reagan's spending spree. Infrastructures spending is generally a much wiser investment than military welfare. Heck, even corporate welfare, as much of a wastage as it is, surpasses military welfare in that at least it produces something in the market.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#107
Actually, something I wouldn't mind seeing would be the Conservative Party replaced by independent candidates. That way, without the dictatorial strictures of partisanship, they would be freer to vote their conscience.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Palin is an odd one. During her resignation speech she claimed that people who put their heads down and stick it out through times like hers are quitters. The non-quitters are the ones who step aside and let someone else take over.

Kreskin, at least in my mind it is clear what Joan of Arc is up to. Now that she is not governor any longer, press won't scrutinize her very closely. She can earn fantastic amounts of money in speech circuits. She is very popular with the far right base and they will pay her astronomical fees to give a speech in front them.

She also has a book deal. So she can earn several million dollars in a short order, which she wouldn’t be able to do as a governor. At the same time, she can build contacts, network for 2012.

She did what any politician who is interested in running in 2012 would have done. Of course, se wrapped it up in family friendly language (her handicapped kid needs her etc.); the far right base just loves that kind of drivel, they lap it up eagerly.

So this tells me that she is serious about a presidential bid in 2012.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Kreskin, at least in my mind it is clear what Joan of Arc is up to. Now that she is not governor any longer, press won't scrutinize her very closely. She can earn fantastic amounts of money in speech circuits. She is very popular with the far right base and they will pay her astronomical fees to give a speech in front them.

She also has a book deal. So she can earn several million dollars in a short order, which she wouldn’t be able to do as a governor. At the same time, she can build contacts, network for 2012.

She did what any politician who is interested in running in 2012 would have done. Of course, se wrapped it up in family friendly language (her handicapped kid needs her etc.); the far right base just loves that kind of drivel, they lap it up eagerly.

So this tells me that she is serious about a presidential bid in 2012.

As for the handicapped kid part, who knows, maybe she is being honest there, so I wouldn't cut her down too quick on that front. I don't know, maybe she is a good person outside of politics, but God help us if she ever becomes president in her current state of heart and mind.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#110
petros, I did what any responsible government should do (but never does): I spent less and scaled down our life style to have more modest expectations.

Yukon, you mean what any liberal government never does. I assume your conservative governments do it all the time; they are the paragons of virtue when it comes to fiscal management.

With Obama economy flooding over to Canada, it is a lead-pipe cinch that they will be WORSE off than our generation.

For your information Yukon, Obama is not in power in Canada, your Messiah is. And he is spending exactly like Obama. But due to some reason, you have problem with Obama’s spending, but not with spending by your Messiah (with his 50 billion plus deficit).
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

As for the handicapped kid part, who knows, maybe she is being honest there, so I wouldn't cut her down too quick on that front. I don't know, maybe she is a good person outside of politics, but God help us if she ever becomes president in her current state of heart and mind.

Maybe she is and maybe she isn’t, Machjo, we don’t know. But that is the kind of thing any politician would say in order to delight his/her base.

It is quite possible that she quit because she really wants to pay more attention to her handicapped son. But what she said is also consistent with her making a run for 2012. I am always filled with cynicism when it comes to politicians. In my opinion, her reference to her handicapped kid was made to pacify, to delight her far right base. If she is going to devote full time to running for 2012, obviously she won’t have that much time to devote to her kid.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#112
Good points Machjo... Seeing how we've seen ho well the academic crowd has managed to run nations, Trudeau, Dion, Iggy and let's not forget Obama - you'll recall that he is the one that applied for foreign-born student scholarships to make his way through post-secondary.

Captain, and I assume your Bush did a stellar job of managing the economy? Spoken like a true believer. And Dion and Iggy mismanaged the economy? Even without being the Prime minister? I didn’t know they have that much power over your Messiah.

So I assume the current 50 billion dollars plus deficit by your Messiah is purely the fault of Iggy and Dion? Your Messiah is totally blameless; he is going a great job of managing the economy?

You true blue conservative loyalists never cease to amuse me.

I see you don’t mention Mulroney here, I assume in your opinion, he was the best there is in fiscal management, I assume under him economy prospered as never before?

At least you had the decency not to claim that economy tanked big time under Chrétien and Martin, that under them we had high inflation and high unemployment (and huge deficits, bigger than under your other Messiah, Mulroney). I give you some credit for that.

But if Bush did such a great job of managing the economy, why did your party (Republicans) suffer such humiliating defeats in 2006 and 2008? Was it all due to Democratic propaganda? I assume Mulroney lost purely due to Liberal propaganda (those evil, nasty Liberals wouldn’t let poor Mulroney explain to the people how good things were under Mulroney). Do you give the same reason for Republican losses?

Come come, Captain, amuse me some more.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#113
let's not forget Obama - you'll recall that he is the one that applied for foreign-born student scholarships to make his way through post-secondary.

So Captain, do you agree with conspiracy theorists, that Obama is an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist who should be imprisoned and deported to Kenya or to Indonesia?
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So lets elect the guy who works nights at the Shell on the corner?

Wrong, petros. Let us elect right wing extremists (according to Captain anyway). Let us have far right in power in perpetuity (like they do in Alberta), the likes of Bush. That will bring in paradise to Canada and USA.

The way to salvation lies through perpetual extreme right government.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The guy who works nights at the Shell on the corner might very well be an intellectual in his own right simply trying to support his family. I'd met a Pakistani engineer working in a corner store in Kitchener.

That is not so unusual, Machjo. He could very well have been a Pakistani (or Indian) doctor. Many professional have a great deal of difficulty getting their qualifications approved by the professional organizations in Canada.

In this respect, Canada is much worse than USA. It is a crying shame, a lot of talent goes waste, because the engineers and doctors cannot get their qualifications recognized by the professional institutions.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Yes as long as he is not inline to become the President.



That doesn’t sound right, ironsides. Does that mean that a foreign born US citizen cannot become Speaker of the House, or Leader of the Senate? They are both in line for President (Speaker is second in line, after Vice President).

But that is an interesting point. The succession line for President is very long maybe 15 or 20 long. Does that mean that everybody in that line must be a US born American citizen? E.g. Senator Byrd is President pro tem of the Senate. He is fairly high on the list, may be No. 4 or 5.

Does that mean that President pro tem of the Senate cannot be a foreign born US citizen? Or does it mean that if ever it comes to him assuming presidency, he cannot do it and the presidency would go to the next one in line?

If so, the same thing may apply to vice president as well. A vice president may be foreign born. However, in the case of death of the president, the VP then cannot become the president; it will have to be the Speaker of the House.[/quote]


Correction:
The Constitution requires presidents to be natural-born citizens of the United States who are at least 35 years of age and have resided in the United States for 14 years. As a tacit statement of America’s commitment to democracy and equal opportunity, the Constitution gave any free white male citizen of the country the opportunity to become president. All males gained the right to become president in 1870 when the 15th Amendment to the Constitution gave African Americans the right to vote. Women were excluded from running for the office until 1920, when the 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave them the right to vote.


This is a list of the current presidential ----, as specified by the -- and the -- (-- --) and subsequent amendments to include newly created cabinet officers.
#OfficeCurrent Officer
1----
2----
3----
4----
5----
6------
7----
8----
9----
10----
11----
12----
13----
14----
15----
16----
17----
18----
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

That is one of the biggest downfalls of our treatment of immigrants by disrespecting their education's and not allowing them to practice the field they are highly educated in.

When you compare the quality of their education to what is passed off as education in western nations is a joke.

We have waiting lists for surgeons where lives are being lost and yet highly qualified specialists are driving cabs or making 3 for pizzas earning a crap living instead of being a big part of this country and paying the taxes that is generated by those who have qualified skills.

Indeed. There are several hundred doctors in Toronto alone, who are driving taxies or delivering pizza because their qualifications have not yet been recognized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Many of them have post graduation, several years of experience etc. But due to some reason, Canadians are pig headed when it comes to recognizing foreign qualifications. Indeed, until recently it was difficult for a doctor to move from one province to another. Getting license in another province was not just a formality, the doctor had to appear for exams. Just recently they have made it easier.

But Canadian seem almost paranoid when it comes to recognizing qualifications from another jurisdiction.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#118
People are already protesting Obama's policies.


Fort Lauderdale Tea Party protesters declare: End "fiscal lunacy"


"FORT LAUDERDALE - In a sea of red, white and blue, hundreds of anti-tax demonstrators took to the streets in Fort Lauderdale to speak out against government spending and President Obama's policies."


--
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#119
That is al very well, ironsides, but you still didn’t answer my question. Does this mean that Speaker of the House etc. must be born in USA? I seriously doubt it.

Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State under Nixon, he was born in Germany. According to the list provided by you, he was 4th in line, yet he was foreign born. I think the way it works out is that Speaker of the House, Leader of the senate, anybody may be foreign born. But if due to some reason presidency comes to him, he cannot become a president.

Thus Kissinger was 4th in line. If due to whatever reason, Nixon, his VP and Speaker of the House had died, Kissinger would not get to be the President, it would go to next in line, Secretary of Treasury.

But I think anybody except president may be foreign born.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

People are already protesting Obama's policies.


Fort Lauderdale Tea Party protesters declare: End "fiscal lunacy"


"FORT LAUDERDALE - In a sea of red, white and blue, hundreds of anti-tax demonstrators took to the streets in Fort Lauderdale to speak out against government spending and President Obama's policies."


--

That is the far right protesting, ironsides. Up until two years ago they were in power (with Bush). Now they have lost all the levers of power (except the Supreme Court), so protest is the only way they can make their discontent known.
 

Similar Threads

3
Only in Alaska.....
by rufus | Jan 28th, 2010
1
S.E.alaska boundary
by Erik | Jan 3rd, 2007
no new posts