Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lt_Ripley

Sarah Palin: Extremist

184 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Golden Hawk
You know, for someone who had to post this nonsense, must really be nervous about McCain and Palin.

You would be too if you knew, or even remember, how much of a "flip-flop" politician McCain is.

I clearly recall in the 1990's, how the GOP stood on the Capital steps, not once, but twice, and signed the infamous, and completely forgotten "CONTRACT WITH AMERICA!".

The GOP was in control of both houses, they were promising measures that would, supposedly:

01) make the greedy ultr-rich start paying their taxes, at a base rate of 20% per one million dollars;

02) would give the majority of folks in this country a good medical plan that would help single, parents, entire families, the elderly, retired a good insurance;

03) completely overhaul social security and make law that no one could touch the funds for anything other than SS benefits;

04) begin upgrading and reopening oil fields and refineries so we would be self sufficent using only US oil for this nation;

05) demand that all countries who owed the US money be given 5 years to repay us;

06) have a law punishing ANY company who moved their headquarters to another company with severe tariffs starting at 5% per month, then adding to that 40%+ for each year the company refused to return to the US.

McCain voted for this contract. He even denounced G.W. Bush as a useless man who knew nothing about politics, and nothing about the needs of the American people. For years McCain had blasted then Gov G.W. Bush as lazy, ineffectual, liar who did not even know what misery was, and could never lead this nation without ruining it completely. Mc Cain continued to blast Bush when both ran for the office in 2000. Remember? I sure do.

For years before Bush illegally purchased the office of the President by selling promises to the Supreme Court Justices who were majority Republican, McCain showed only contempt for the tyrant who now has complete control of this nation. McCain did not trust Bush and continued to say so repeatedly. Then in 2004, McCain was bought off. How? With what? Only the Bush dictatorship program knows.

MccAin became another Bush puppet, he grovels, fails to even look Bush directly in the eye for any length of time, sneeks along, it is not just his war wounds that make him walk carefully.

And his war wounds?? OH MY!! Originally McCain said that his legs were broken by his Vietnamese captors. For decades he has told this story. That he was a POW in Viet-Nam is real, but his wounds? Now he says he broke his legs when his plane crashed, and that he had to crawl out of the wreckage to avoid an explosion, that no one in the immediate area ever reported! Not even friendly patrols that were with a few clicks of the crash, ever reported an explosion, had they they could have, would have notified air rescue in an attempt to get the flyer out.

Too many lies, a country in the midst of the greatest depression since the 1920's-1930's, the US dollar worthless, our foreign affairs a waste, our so caled president considered the clown of politicians. Bush took a several trillion dollar plus budget and within the first two years of his office, lost every dollar.effectively bankrupting the US.

We are now homeless, jobless, moneyless (gas or food, gas or shelter, gas or utilities, etc, etc, etc,. DON'T tell me the majority of you don't have to decide which to pay each month :angry2: ) .

If you vote GOP and they win , pack your bags and head for the street, for that is where the GOP will have us all, with the only hope another bloodless Revolution, in an attempt to regain what is lawfully and Constatutionally ours!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
If you vote GOP and they win , pack your bags and head for the street, for that is where the GOP will have us all, with the only hope another bloodless Revolution, in an attempt to regain what is lawfully and Constatutionally ours!!!

Will Alec Baldwin be there too? I'm still waiting for him to leave the country like he promised if Bush won second term. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Hawk
Let me know when you get to the part where the Minister says they are the cause of all the ills in the world and should be overthrown. Then you can say she's on equal footing with Obama in terms of church experiences.

According to many churches, they are. However I have chosen to do as God and Jesus have told us to do.

"Judge not lest YE be judged."

"Let YE who are without sin cast the first stone."

"THOU shall not bear false witness against THY neighbor."

I have known a few homosexualsn and gays. I have spoken with them at length and find none to be the monsters and rabble rousers so many wrongly accuse them of. We are no better nor worse than our neighbor. But to accuse because of false testimony based on social intolerance is now and was always, and will always be wrong, and by God's law a mortal sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
According to many churches, they are.

So then at the very least Palin is on the same level plane as Obama and his minister of 20 years. B)

Point: MasterPo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
You seem to have a very Ivory Tower notion of how politics works.

What you call a "conspiracy" I say is just the normal negotiation, give&take that always happens in the Oval Office or the board room. Agreements and side deals are common. Most of life works that way. Hate to be the one to burst your bubble on it. Legislation isn't as simple as School House Rock shows it to be. ;)

My friend, did you forget the definition of conspiracy? You should carry a dictionary with you everywhere you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
You seem to have a very Ivory Tower notion of how politics works.

What you call a "conspiracy" I say is just the normal negotiation, give&take that always happens in the Oval Office or the board room. Agreements and side deals are common. Most of life works that way. Hate to be the one to burst your bubble on it. Legislation isn't as simple as School House Rock shows it to be. ;)

Who stood to benefit from these "secret" agreements? Give&Take? Under this agreement, U.S. labor is doing all the giving and corporations are doing all the fleecing, I mean taking. The republicans are working for the corps while the dems look the other way. That is why the Dem vs Rep is meaningless. Both are either robbing or permitting the robbery of the middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
Who stood to benefit from these "secret" agreements? Give&Take? Under this agreement, U.S. labor is doing all the giving and corporations are doing all the fleecing, I mean taking. The republicans are working for the corps while the dems look the other way. That is why the Dem vs Rep is meaningless. Both are either robbing or permitting the robbery of the middle class.

So where's the line between "negotiation" and "conspiracy"?

Keep in mind the Presidnet does not have line item veto power (Clinton's one use was symbolic more than authoritative).

For those not familiar with it, line item veto means the President can red line out parts of a bill he doesn't want and sign the rest into law. Without that the President can only sign or not sign (veto) the entire bill. That means if there are 5 things in the bill he wants and 3 he doesn't he can't pick and choose. As you can see there are pros and cons to both aspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
Too many lies, a country in the midst of the greatest depression since the 1920's-1930's, <SNIP>

Owl Lady,

I ask this with respect: Are you old enough to know first hand the depression of the 20's-30's? I doubt it.

My parents were from the depression era/WW2 generation. The stories they and other aunts/uncles from the same era told me of how their families lived then are completely different from what is happening today. And there were no social "safety nets" back then either! (and they didn't want any but that's another topic).

Not to make insignificant the economic problems of today but this is as far from a depression as the desert is from the arctic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
Owl Lady,

I ask this with respect: Are you old enough to know first hand the depression of the 20's-30's? I doubt it.

My parents were from the depression era/WW2 generation. The stories they and other aunts/uncles from the same era told me of how their families lived then are completely different from what is happening today. And there were no social "safety nets" back then either! (and they didn't want any but that's another topic).

Not to make insignificant the economic problems of today but this is as far from a depression as the desert is from the arctic!

By safety nets you mean the Glass-Stegall act and Social Security (to name a few)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
By safety nets you mean the Glass-Stegall act

That was about establishing the FDIC and stopping commerical banks from the wild speculative "investing" with depositor's funds. Hardly a social 'safety net'.

BTW, it's Glass-Steagall act (half point:MasterPo).

and Social Security (to name a few)?

Not the same as say food stamps, SSI, publically (tax payer) subsidized housing, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and a thousand other federal, state and local hand out programs.

Edited by MasterPo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
So where's the line between "negotiation" and "conspiracy"?

The line between negotiation and conspiracy? How were the negotiations conducted? If in secret - the negotiations may be considered a conspiracy (barring items of national security).

The negotiations discussed (see http://www.credoaction.com/sirota/2007/05/...y_10_bush.html) regarding free trade and labor with Columbia and Peru were done behind closed doors and the minutes of the meeting are sealed - not open for public scrutiny. We hire public officials by voting for them and they are to be working in the best interests of their constituents. The Freedom of Information Act is to help facilitate transparency at all levels of government. Why the secrets on trade between countries unless there is something to hide?

Why did the first negotiations have measures of protecting labor as a major bargaining chip and then were dropped as side issues that won't be enforced? The net result: world workers will make less and have less benefits. The middle class, the working class, suffers in the name of globalization whereas the "millionares club" benefits. Will this trend of globalization result in slavery of the masses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

To understand the economics of the NWO, read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
The negotiations discussed (see http://www.credoaction.com/sirota/2007/05/...y_10_bush.html) regarding free trade and labor with Columbia and Peru were done behind closed doors and the minutes of the meeting are sealed - not open for public scrutiny. We hire public officials by voting for them and they are to be working in the best interests of their constituents. The Freedom of Information Act is to help facilitate transparency at all levels of government. Why the secrets on trade between countries unless there is something to hide?

Obviously, the answer to this cannot be stated with any certainty. However, if you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with several reasons why that don't involve (necessarily) any nefarious purposes on the part of either negotiating party.

Off the top of my head, I can say that negotiations could be kept secret due to an effort by one of the parties to avoid the use of some political angle that may not have actually played any part in the negotiations but may have a large impact on the way politics is played in the negotiating country.

Remember, negotiations may not have been kept secret by the U.S. negotiating team (for example) but by that of the other country which is not (and should not) be held to the same political standards and constraints to which the U.S. is held.

In the case of Columbia and Peru, negotiations may have included topics that may fall under drug interdiction as well. I can see why those governments might not want to hand their drug lords information for free that they would ordinarily have to bribe someone for. That's how you catch the bribe-takers, after all.

Why did the first negotiations have measures of protecting labor as a major bargaining chip and then were dropped as side issues that won't be enforced? The net result: world workers will make less and have less benefits. The middle class, the working class, suffers in the name of globalization whereas the "millionares club" benefits. Will this trend of globalization result in slavery of the masses?

Is it not possible that trade measures could not be agreed upon if they included forcing another country to abide by an environmental law that that particular country could not have passed through their own legislature (if any)?

If that were the case, isn't that exactly the same as the U.S. forcing other countries to follow U.S. laws and not their own?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
Obviously, the answer to this cannot be stated with any certainty. However, if you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with several reasons why that don't involve (necessarily) any nefarious purposes on the part of either negotiating party.

Off the top of my head, I can say that negotiations could be kept secret due to an effort by one of the parties to avoid the use of some political angle that may not have actually played any part in the negotiations but may have a large impact on the way politics is played in the negotiating country.

Remember, negotiations may not have been kept secret by the U.S. negotiating team (for example) but by that of the other country which is not (and should not) be held to the same political standards and constraints to which the U.S. is held.

In the case of Columbia and Peru, negotiations may have included topics that may fall under drug interdiction as well. I can see why those governments might not want to hand their drug lords information for free that they would ordinarily have to bribe someone for. That's how you catch the bribe-takers, after all.

Is it not possible that trade measures could not be agreed upon if they included forcing another country to abide by an environmental law that that particular country could not have passed through their own legislature (if any)?

If that were the case, isn't that exactly the same as the U.S. forcing other countries to follow U.S. laws and not their own?

Harte

All good points; however, you failed to see how, what was released about the negotiations, the labor end of things were dropped from a high priority by the Dems to a side issue. Hence, the U.S. workers are screwed with no level playing field. Workers' rights in the U.S. are eroding faster than sh@*!

Edited by SoCrazes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
All good points; however, you failed to see how, what was released about the negotiations, the labor end of things were dropped from a high priority by the Dems to a side issue. Hence, the U.S. workers are screwed with no level playing field. Workers' rights in the U.S. are eroding faster than sh@*!

I disagree that trade agreements have anything to do with the erosion of "workers rights."

In fact, I disagree that workers rights have eroded.

What has eroded are the walls of protectionism that for decades once coddled workers here into imagining "rights" which they do not actually possess.

I've been involved in enough manufacturing plant closures to speak somewhat authoritatively on this matter.

Harte

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
I disagree that trade agreements have anything to do with the erosion of "workers rights."

In fact, I disagree that workers rights have eroded.

What has eroded are the walls of protectionism that for decades once coddled workers here into imagining "rights" which they do not actually possess.

I've been involved in enough manufacturing plant closures to speak somewhat authoritatively on this matter.

Harte

What about the illegal aliens working in the U.S.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

What about all the "stolen" pensions of workers throughout the U.S.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
If in secret - the negotiations may be considered a conspiracy (barring items of national security).

What you call "secret" I call privacy.

Do you conduct all your busness out on the side walk with any one who wants can come by?

What about all the "stolen" pensions of workers throughout the U.S.?

Sorry, that line is long past it's expiration date. Get a fresher one. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
What you call "secret" I call privacy.

Do you conduct all your busness out on the side walk with any one who wants can come by?

Sorry, that line is long past it's expiration date. Get a fresher one. ;)

No, but I'm not charting the course for a nation on behalf of its people as their elected government official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
No, but I'm not charting the course for a nation on behalf of its people as their elected government official.

But you may still be conspiring. How do I know you aren't conspiring to commit a crime? A terrorist act? To rob someone of their life savings? To cheat someone out of an opportunity they have worked for?

I think it's clear: You should have to conduct all your business on the corner of Main Street and Downtown USA just so we're all sure everything is good. If you have nothing to hide that shouldn't be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
What you call "secret" I call privacy.

Do you conduct all your busness out on the side walk with any one who wants can come by?

Sorry, that line is long past it's expiration date. Get a fresher one. ;)

Privacy is for personal items. Transparency is for items of public interest. I think you have the terms facism and republicanism confused with one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
Privacy is for personal items. Transparency is for items of public interest.

So then all businesses should conduct every negotiation, every deal, every meeting wide open to the world. All contract talks, planning meetings, design sessions, legal hearings, employment interviews etc etc etc.

Afterall, isn't it the contention of the conspiriciers that it's "big oil" that has conspired to manipulate the price for their own personal wealth at the expense of the population? Just imagine how that could have been avoided!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
So then all businesses should conduct every negotiation, every deal, every meeting wide open to the world. All contract talks, planning meetings, design sessions, legal hearings, employment interviews etc etc etc.

Afterall, isn't it the contention of the conspiriciers that it's "big oil" that has conspired to manipulate the price for their own personal wealth at the expense of the population? Just imagine how that could have been avoided!

It is the law that when you are acting on behalf of the public (governmental body) you are to hold the meetings in an open manner. There are a few exceptions to this Open Meetings Act. Many governmental bodies are sued every day for not following the rules of this act. I never once mentioned businesses or individuals, only government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

BTW MasterPo, since you brought businesses into the fold, there are specific guidelines on how to operate board of director meetings for PUBLICly listed corporations too.

If it is a PRIVATE business you may keep your matters PRIVATE. If it is a PUBLIC business, there are few situations you may keep your matters private, most must be PUBLIC.

Since government is a PUBLIC institution, then most matters must be made PUBLIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
Since government is a PUBLIC institution, then most matters must be made PUBLIC.

The public has the right to know - just not always the obligation. And that is why trust is soooooo important in the leaders we elect. Which in turn goes to character, judgement, and experience. To expect all business to be conducted in the open is to be childishly niave. :innocent:

BTW, don't even think about lecturing me about business governance! :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.