Palin's future?

Over time the stock market has been rock-solid and very dependable. On any given day it also has the potential to lose a huge amount of its value. That is the same quality that makes it rock-solid and dependable – the fact that there is some risk.

I think a lot of what separates us is confidence in government institutions versus confidence in private institutions. Huge, landscape changing swings in the pendulum between the two views happen occasionally. It appears as though this year will be one of them and the landscape may be changed for many years to come. While I regret that I do not personally have any enmity for those who celebrate it. In some ways I think we need to look at these swings not as good or bad but simply as what is. Maybe this is one of those times.

What “Wall Street owes…” That gives me a little heartburn. Why would Wall Street owe anybody? Can it be you don’t buy into the theory that this all started with the failure(s) at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? You see this more as Wall Street greed and CEOs cashing out with golden parachutes?

ziggy wrote:

And you point to this as a success.

Can you name even one American corporation that you can guarantee will not be "bankrupt" between now and 2017 and 2041?

They do so at their own peril and not with my hard earned tax dollars.

Again, it's not relevant to government failures, try as you might to change the conversation.

What “Wall Street owes…” That gives me a little heartburn. Why would Wall Street owe anybody? Can it be you don’t buy into the theory that this all started with the failure(s) at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? You see this more as Wall Street greed and CEOs cashing out with golden parachutes?

If you mean that Wall Street "cashes out" and everyone is "even" at the end of every banking day, then yeah.

As to greed, isn't that the fuel that keeps it all rolling?

So still, if it all works so well, then why does a "compassionate conservative" Republican administration believe that a trillion $$$$$$ government bailout is necessary to keep it all afloat?

ziggy wrote:

That 2007 Balance that is owed to the SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND is $2.0119 TRILLION DOLLARS.

How does that compare to what Wall Street owes? Just a drop in the bucket.

Which is it Ziggy, you delusional or just plain stupid?

Wall Street doesn't owe anybody anything except its NYC taxes, NYS taxes and the cost of the daily utilities.

I have to assume that the typical dumb-shit figgures that if they retain a Realtor to "sell their house" ........ and they accept less than the original asking price, ........ then the Realtor is responsible for paying them the difference so they won't be losing any money.



..

ziggy wrote:
So still, if it all works so well, then why does a "compassionate conservative" Republican administration believe that a trillion $$$$$$ government bailout is necessary to keep it all afloat?

Because they bought into the hysterical rantings of one of Wall Street's own coupled with the democratic leadership in Congress and caved.

We're discussing government ran programs.

Compared to what?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

And you point to this as a success.

Can you name even one American corporation that you can guarantee will not be "bankrupt" between now and 2017 and 2041?

They do so at their own peril and not with my hard earned tax dollars.

Their own peril? Bull! Have you forgotten about that trillion dollar bailout bill already? And we hear that there's more on the way.

Again, it's not relevant to government failures, try as you might to change the conversation.

Government "failures" compared to what? What is the standard for "non-failure"?

Back to Failin' Palin (or Snowjob Squareglasses, as I like to call her):

Palin: ‘I don’t know’ if abortion clinic bombers are ‘terrorists'.

Please, please stop defending this woman.

The GOP needs to drop the Palins, the Perkinses, the Dobsens, the Robertsons, or they will never win again. The "government belongs in the bedroom" asshats need to go.

They need to stop kicking people like Powell, Buckley, McClellen away - boot the social conservatives and get those guys back.

Snowjob Squareglasses. I like that. You betcha.

Boot the social conservatives and the Republicans won't be able to win dogcatcher. How the devil did you come to that conclusion?

What again happened in 1994? Many, including me, predict it in 2010, when instead of taking your advice, Terry, the Republicans reject it and own their conservatism rather than try to play the Mavericks (which, incidentally, is a local band down here that plays the bar scene).

Boot the social conservatives and the Republicans won't be able to win dogcatcher. How the devil did you come to that conclusion?

What again happened in 1994? Many, including me, predict it in 2010, when instead of taking your advice, Terry, the Republicans reject it and own their conservatism rather than try to play the Mavericks (which, incidentally, is a local band down here that plays the bar scene).

In my opinion, the social conservatives have ruined the party.

They drove me away from it. They make a big issue about gays marrying while the fed robs us blind and tramples on the COTUS and our rights (I'm looking right at you, Bush, you and your "Patriot Act" and your Gitmo Bay).

The GOP will never get rid of abortion. If they did, what would they use to flog the masses? The GOP had control of the fed up until a little while ago. They did next to nothing on their socially conservative pledges to the religious right.

McCain, by catering to the religious right and choosing Palin as a running mate, has alienated moderate to left members of HIS OWN PARTY.

The GOP had better change their image or they will follow the Whigs into the cylindrical file.

ziggy wrote:

We're discussing government ran programs.

Compared to what?

I'm not doing a comparison here. I say they're all full of fraud, waste and mismanagement, are not effective and are a huge waste on taxpayers and I've challenged you to show me one government ran program that isn't.

You've yet to meet that challenge.

TerryRC wrote:The GOP needs to drop the Palins, the Perkinses, the Dobsens, the Robertsons, or they will never win again. The "government belongs in the bedroom" asshats need to go.

Seems to me that's what scared you guys the most about Palin, is that she appealed to these guys and now you're scared shirtless that the far right will repeat 2000 and 2004, thus the constant attack mode against this beautiful woman.

Seems to me that's what scared you guys the most about Palin, is that she appealed to these guys and now you're scared shirtless that the far right will repeat 2000 and 2004, thus the constant attack mode against this beautiful woman.

Are you familiar with the HOT:CRAZY correlation? No? Nevermind.

Palin can't call an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist.

Maybe she's right. Perhaps such bombers are freedom fighters. You know, fighting for the freedom to blow up places where pregnant women seem to congregate for various reasons. I mean, that's not terrorism.

Attack my argument, Aaron, that Palin is a dangerously stupid, divisive person that doesn't represent the values of a majority in this country. Attack it if you can.

Does she scare me a little? You damn bet'cha. Does it make me wrong? Nope. Go to my link, you can watch her screw herself with her own words.

This is how you debate, Aaron:

I made an argument. I provided an example to back it up.

Here is another example (this one goes to the stupid part of the argument):



This is not a shop. The woman was wearing a democratic party scarf at a rally.

WTF?

Ten years ago, if you had told me McCain was running for president, I'd have had no doubt who I was voting for.

Now I feel betrayed.

I don't think Palin's stupid. We're she, I doubt she'd be a candiate for VP of a major political party or the governor of Alaska. I think many of thought that of her and that's one of the reasons she's where she is but I think the simple fact that she's not stupid combined with what she represents, has scared the shit out of the left.

As for what she represents, the christian coalition of the Republican party, I hardly see how you can say Americans don't support that when it is that faction that won Presidential elections in 1980 and 84 and ousted ubaliberals in both 2000 and 2004 as well as took control of Washington in 1994 and as a result of their leadership in Congress, led this country to a projected budget surplus before 9/11.

All is history and factual, unlike the opinion you posted and as such, are hard to argue against.

Terry,

As far as I can tell, the GOP is going to get smacked down for compromising it's economic principles and for being unable (and perhaps even unwilling) to confront the Dems on the whole mortgage and credit messes.

I don't think social conservatism will have anything to do with Obama's win. I don't think you'll find many people like yourself as far as your voting thinking process goes. "It's the economy" is the refrain and it's going to (quite ironically, I believe) put Obama in the White House.

I don't think social conservatism will have anything to do with Obama's win. I don't think you'll find many people like yourself as far as your voting thinking process goes. "It's the economy" is the refrain and it's going to (quite ironically, I believe) put Obama in the White House.

Appeasing the religious right isn't very "mavericky". Using Rovian tactics of attack and slander isn't very "mavericky".

That is what is going to cost McCain the election.

The only people in the GOP that aren't holding their heads in frustration and shame are the religious right and the never-fail party loyalists.

All is history and factual, unlike the opinion you posted and as such, are hard to argue against.

You post not a single number and call it factual. Do you really have much idea about the actual numbers of the "christian coalition"?

Opinion, huh? Did you hear Palin say that she couldn't call an abortion bomber a terrorist? Where is my opinion in that? Did you see her wearing a dem party scarf in public? Where is the opinion in that?

She will cost McCain this election.

We're she, I doubt she'd be a candiate for VP of a major political party or the governor of Alaska.

Dan Quayle. 'Nuff said.

The proof is in the pudding.

What does a wiki page do for your argument about the power of the christian coalition?

Please connect the dots for me.

So what about Palin refusing to call clinic bombers "terrorists"? Do you think that that is in line with the majority of Americans?

I can't help your memory any Terry. Sorry about that.

As for what Palin said about bombers, I didn't see it but I'll take you're word she said it. I'll read the proper context later but I don't agree with it. Yes, they are terrorist.

I can't help your memory any Terry. Sorry about that.

Aaron, posting a link to a wiki page doesn't an argument make.

If you can't rebut me, just say so.

I just did. She said the christian coalition doesn't matter. The contract with America is proof enough for me. But as I'm running reports and doing my weekly status report, I don't have time to find links to actual voting data that we both know exist. We both also know that the power of the Christian right and their support of Palin is what scares the hell out of the left and that is the reason for the D-Day style of attacks that have been levied at her since her announcement in Dayton.

I just did. She said the christian coalition doesn't matter. The contract with America is proof enough for me. But as I'm running reports and doing my weekly status report, I don't have time to find links to actual voting data.

Who is "she" and you are the one that said:


As for what she represents, the christian coalition of the Republican party, I hardly see how you can say Americans don't support that when it is that faction that won Presidential elections in 1980 and 84 and ousted ubaliberals in both 2000 and 2004 as well as took control of Washington in 1994 and as a result of their leadership in Congress, led this country to a projected budget surplus before 9/11.

Linking to a wiki page on the "Contract with America" doesn't support your bare assertion bolded above.

Gosh. It is like debating with a five-year old.