Posted 1 year, 0 months ago in 
Loading ...
In a campaign speech in Kissimmee, Fla, Sarah Palin said in one sentence that Wall Street needs to be cleaned up, and then in the very next sentence that she and John McCain are going to work hard to protect the money that “our seniors have worked so long and hard for.”
Is she kidding, or is she really that mindlessly glib? As Joe Biden’s 10-year-old granddaughter says, “Hellooooo?”
Sarah, the Republicans (your party) are the ones who wanted to put Social Security (seniors’ money) in the stock market (Wall Street). Get it? How can any thinking person possibly believe anything you say?
KITTY NICHOLASON
Grand Junction
18 Responses to “Palin confused on Social Security and stock market”
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good question. Perhaps the answer is that Palin devotees aren’t really basing their support on thoughtful answers to good questions. From where I am sitting, the Palin message is a hollow regurgitation of “emotionalism” based on a bunch of other “isms”, like racism, sexism, patriotism, fundamentalism, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
The emptiness of the Palin candidacy is becoming more evident with each passing day. If she is the future of the Republican Party, as she seems to think, the Democrats have little to fear.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Don’t forget “income redistribution”. I wonder what the Republican ticket calls what has happened to the now-top heavy income distribution in this country? I guess it is pure merit rising to the top. Shades of the Nineties! 1890’s
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It does bother me that she appeared confused, however, As an 86 year old AA - and a Democratic voter for the last 60 years
-these are troubling
problems for me as well - I just may sit out this election:
l. Colin Powell - a Bush - Sec of State that got us into this war
stating Weapons of Mass Destruction which proved erroneous — endorses
Obama who readily accepts the endorsement - wasn’t Obama against the
war in Iraq?
2. Everyone thinks Bill Ayers is not a situation that is disturbing -
people died because of him just like McVeigh - only not as many.
Wright, Rezko and all the other associations - if you know nothing
about a person’s character, which we don’t about Sen Obama - you are
obliged to look at his friends.
3. Bothers me that Sen Obama did not know that Wright was a racist,
that Ayers was a terrorist, that Rezko was a crook, that Acorn was
involved with voting fraud - what does he know?
4. Race baiting constantly - any question you ask about anything from
Sen Obamas past makes you a racist, or a bitter person clinging to
your religion and guns.
5. World Trade Center - dedication ceremony - where was Michelle??
6. Obamas speeches saying that he was raised by a SINGLE parent and
they were poor - actually his mother was single for only two years
between her first and second husband - He was also raised by his
upper-middle class grandparents in a high
rise condominium in Hawaii, where he attended a private college
prepatory school. His grandmother, was the vice president of a bank.
7. Joe the Plumber - he is middle class - he is one of us - he is
struggling - yet
Sen Obama is snubbing his nose at him.
8. Logan Act - Rico Act - why do we have ACTS if no one is
responsible for their involvement - Sen Obama,as proven, talked with
Iraq regarding pull out time frame of troops there.
9. Sixteen States have reported Voter Fraud through Acorn
representatives - what happened to our every vote counts and how can
we possibly use us as an example of a democratic government to other countries.
10. Sen Obamas constant flip-flopping based on where he is giving a
speech and documented - from oil drilling, FISA, Prochoice,
equal pay for women, look at his own staff, taxes, health care
platform, NAFTA, Campaign finance reform, gun ownership, Iraq troop
withdrawals.
11. “People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to
serve;. I will set a goal for all American middle and high school
students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college
students to perform 100 hours of service a year.”
12. Reported illegal contributions to the campaign.
13. Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women
to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn’t
think women should have to register.” The draft next??
14. What Jessie Jackson said about Israel and Sen Obama:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0
15. 401K tax removal plan - spread the wealth???
16. Obamas vision for Social Security would be a “welfare program” -
low earners would receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes -
can you say broke??
17. Obama states that he voted against Iraq War - he was not even a
US Senator to vote against it yet - in fact - before his campaign he
was in the Senate less than 9 months - what kind of experience is
that??
18. American Media - you have to go to Canada or Europe to find
out the truth - why is everything being surpressed here, and why are
THEY deciding who to elect, through the biased media and polls.
Change he has refused to define - Sen Obama used change to advance
his career - Sen McCain used his career to advance change - Country
before Party.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s obvious your mind is made up. A little digging will provide all the answers you’re seeking. Vote McCain if you think these talking points are meaningful, which they are not.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee John can you tell us which of Wizards’s talking points are not meaningful? Or is it the fact that they are meaningful to a lot of people, and Barack being a coward, he is not admitting to some of them, and tries to cover up what he doesn’t want people to know? (Now that would go for any politician, but we are talking about Obama at this point).
Now, does this mean that if these points were about McCain, wouldn’t you be jumping up and down condemning him? Well, of course you would, if it was McCain. But being it is Obama, it isn’t meaningful, right? Pretty sad!!
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 5:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
tasha53 - Regardless of what you say, come the morning of November 5th, Barack Hussein Obama will be President-Elect of the United States of Amerika. You are just going to have to live with it (or move to Costa Rica). I don’t envy you the next 4-8 years.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 5:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ullr,
I don’t know what your sick motives are for the way you talk, (bubba) but do me a favor, you leave. You only trash this town up as far as I’m concerned. BTW, just curious, did you star in “Deliverance” as the toothless man? (bubba)
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 6:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ullr, you have one heck of a way of not addressing the issues!
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Irish,
ullr, is just like Obama.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
#1 is flat wrong.
Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction. We know this because he USED them. Against Iran and against Kurds in his own country. The weapons were there.
We did not invade Iraq just because of the WMDs, there were many other reasons. A big one would be the fact that Saddam violated every single stipulation of the cease-fire from Gulf War I. Or how about our patrols of the no-fly zones being fired upon nearly every day for ten years?
Since the invasion, the evidence suggests that Saddam was dismantling his WMD program while maintaining the illusion that he still had them available. Lots of trucks went into Syria in the weeks before the invasion. I’m sure they were carrying medical supplies.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 7:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott stated: “Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction.”
Really? At which point did he have such weapons, as US forces and weapons teams did not find any. Even prior to the beginning of the war, the UN inspectors told the Security Council that Saddam had no such weapons, not once, but several times. In addition to which, just before the conflict began, Saddam stated that anyone could look for such weapons wherever and whenever they wished.
Scott then speculates: “Lots of trucks went into Syria in the weeks before the invasion. I’m sure they were carrying medical supplies.”
And that is all it is, speculation. And, it does not make sense. Does Scott believe that, after Iran not returning the planes Saddam flew there prior to the first Gulf War, that even Saddam would have turned over such weapons to another neighbor?
Sorry, but the arguments and conclusions do not make sense. The verdict that the latest “invasion” of Iraq was a “war of choice” by the current administration is in, and from all quarters. Those who cannot accept it do not have to, and it is their choice. All that is required is to ignore the facts.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 8:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres,
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/wmdiraq.pdf
Page five of this link details ten known instances of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. It also details their programs up to and after the first gulf war.
And I’m not denying that the invasion of Iraq was not a war of choice. I’m saying that the “no WMD” line doesn’t hold water.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 9:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Irish - You said, “Ullr, you have one heck of a way of not addressing the issues!”
If there’s one thing George W. Bush taught us is that when you’re in control you don’t have to address the issues, and as of November 5th, WE will be in control.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: That report is dated in 1999, years prior to the beginning of, or hint of war. All indicators are that it was faulty. Even the current administration now admits that it was so. Why anyone would persist in maintaining otherwise totally befuddles me.
This war was all about oil. Wolfowitz said as much when asked. He stated that Iraq floated on a “sea of oil”. Former Fed Chair Greenspan said that the war was about oil. Even, Fukuyama (Francis, I believe), another scholar said the same. Now, it might be argued that “oil” is an interest of this country, but as a cause or rationale for war? I don’t happen to believe that it was.
You state: “I’m saying that the “no WMD” line doesn’t hold water.” The WMD line as a reason for war does not hold water at all as Saddam had none when the war started. And, do people really believe that if he had them, when he knew that he was about to lose, he would not have used them? Now, although Saddam may not have been the great “strategist” neither was he that dumb. If he had such weapons, he would have used them.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 9:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
tasha53 - You said, “You only trash this town up as far as I’m concerned.”
But remember the old saying, “One man’s trash is another woman’s treasure.”
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 9:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
It depends on your definition of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. During desert storm, 46 SCUD missiles were launched against Saudi Arabia. I don’t believe they were considered Weapons of Mass Destruction. Considering chemical weapons as WMD’s is a modern construct. If you were a Cold War participant, you would expect that a WMD would be an “H” bomb capable of killing millions.
Posted October 28th, 2008 at 10:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My point is that we know Saddam had WMDs in the past. You asked when he ever had them.
rm: Chemical weapons have been considered weapons of mass destruction since the beginning of the invasion, as far as I know.
Posted November 6th, 2008 at 2:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well Kitty, how about the video clip I saw of Joe Biden stating
‘Back when the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television’
Wait, he wasn’t president and they didn’t have television either! My grandpa was born AFTER the Second World War, and he didn’t have a television until he was a teenager.
Palin has only made as many speaking mistakes as the other 3 candidates.
And I thought John McCain was running for president? He may be 72, but his mom is in her late 90’s and still traveled the country with him on the stump. Seems to be a lot of life in the McCain blood
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.