What is Sarah Palin? Why She's A Neocon Co-optuer Of Course.

[targus]

That is good for you. Many small business have gone out of business because of the banking problems induced by the policies of the Bush administration

What policies specifically?

The policies under Bush set up the financial disaster.

What policies specifically?

 

[carpro]

You don't really expect a coherent, truthful response, do you?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That is good for you. Many small business have gone out of business because of the banking problems induced by the policies of the Bush administration ... and problems continue because banks are reluctant to make loans to small businesses. It does not make sense to me that they have taken this stance, but they have.

That's Obama for you. Create a problem, and blame Bush. A lot of us had to start our own small businesses because the large companies we worked for went overseas under Clinton. Also, when did these banking problems start, and how did then senator zero vote on them ?

The value of almost all homes nose dived also, something like 30% in our area. They have come back a little in our area, but still are far below 2008. Many people's homes are 'under water', this is their morgage is greater than the current value of the house.

I would never say that everyone is worse off, but the majority of Americans are and that is sad. In any economic climate there are some who will benefit regardless of how many others are hurt.

That is sad. Too bad Obama & his commie co-horts are more interested in ramming a commie health care bill, and commie cap & trade thru than cutting taxes and allowing the economy to right it'self. But I'm sure you, being a "fiscal conservative" don't need to be told that, do you ?

The policies under Bush set up the financial disaster. It was years in the making and not restricted to events after 2006. Both parties share blame in my mind as does the media for giving Bush a free ride in his early years in office.

Giving Bush a free ride ? How utterly dishonest of you. Bush was absolutely slammed when he tried to reign in F.M. & F.M., and his efforts to fix social security were beitterly fought against.

Face it. Obama is way worse than Bush, when it comes to financially devastating policies. And that is really saying something.

 

[sag38]

Repeat ater me and you won't have to read anything else that Crabby posts because you will have learned his main argument. "It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault."

 

[Crabtownboy]

What policies specifically?
What policies specifically?

It was both his policies and his attitude.

1. Do you remember how he fired people who told him the truth; i.e. Paul O'Neill was ousted from Treasury for warning about deficits. Larry Lindsey was kicked out of the top White House economic job for predicting in 2002 that the Iraq war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion.

2. Returning to deficit spending. The federal government was running a surplus when he took office.

3. Tax cuts for the rich. The time was right when Reagan did this, but times change and Bush's cuts made the coming disaster much worse. Part of the blame does have to go to Reagan, Bush and Clinton. But G. did not help mantters. The economic conditions when Bush took office were almost opposite to those when Reagan took office.

4. Lack of financial regulation. Here also Reagan, Bush and Clinton share blame.

5. Just like presidents before him he had no energy policy in attempting to lessen our dependence on foreigh oil.

6. The Iraq war that deepened our debt, especially to the Chinese.

7. Neither Bush nor Obama took the bailout far enough. Interestingly the Chinese have read our economic textbooks. When they saw the trouble the instituted a very huge bailout program and now their economy is moving upward very nicely ... for them, not for us.

Unfortuantely for Bush many of the problems that had been growing for years were not addressed by his administration and they blew up before he left office. Now, if I were really cynical, I would say he knew the problems were there and he could leave office before the train really wrecked. I do not know if this is true or not. But the bottom line is his administration did not address the problems and now we are in a mess.

 

[targus]

It was both his policies and his attitude.

1. Do you remember how he fired people who told him the truth; i.e. Paul O'Neill was ousted from Treasury for warning about deficits. Larry Lindsey was kicked out of the top White House economic job for predicting in 2002 that the Iraq war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion.

2. Returning to deficit spending. The federal government was running a surplus when he took office.

3. Tax cuts for the rich. The time was right when Reagan did this, but times change and Bush's cuts made the coming disaster much worse. Part of the blame does have to go to Reagan, Bush and Clinton. But G. did not help mantters. The economic conditions when Bush took office were almost opposite to those when Reagan took office.

4. Lack of financial regulation. Here also Reagan, Bush and Clinton share blame.

5. Just like presidents before him he had no energy policy in attempting to lessen our dependence on foreigh oil.

6. The Iraq war that deepened our debt, especially to the Chinese.

7. Neither Bush nor Obama took the bailout far enough. Interestingly the Chinese have read our economic textbooks. When they saw the trouble the instituted a very huge bailout program and now their economy is moving upward very nicely ... for them, not for us.

Unfortuantely for Bush many of the problems that had been growing for years were not addressed by his administration and they blew up before he left office. Now, if I were really cynical, I would say he knew the problems were there and he could leave office before the train really wrecked. I do not know if this is true or not. But the bottom line is his administration did not address the problems and now we are in a mess.

So now it wasn't his policies - it was his attitude.

Unless you can give specific policies - that would have to be different than under the Clinton administration - then you are just blowing smoke.

You said the problems are due to "Bush's policies".

What policies?

 

[Crabtownboy]

So now it wasn't his policies - it was his attitude.

Unless you can give specific policies - that would have to be different than under the Clinton administration - then you are just blowing smoke.

You said the problems are due to "Bush's policies".

What policies?

As I said, it was both. Read it again. I showed attitude and policy. If you cannot see the two, then you will never understand ... or are you simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? Policy or lack of policy comes, at least partly, from attitude.



What policies do you think were the right ones?

 

[targus]

As I said, it was both. Read it again. I showed attitude and policy. If you cannot see the two, then you will never understand ... or are you simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? Policy or lack of policy comes, at least partly, from attitude.



What policies do you think were the right ones?

You originally said that it was Bush's policies that were responsible for the current economic situation.

Then when asked for specifics you diverted to his attitude and the continued policies of his predecessors.

You did not offer one single policy specific to Bush that is the cause of the current economic situation.

I know it and any reasonable person reading this thread knows it too.

 

[billwald]

Most new businesses go out of business no matter who the president because the owners go in over their heads and have no business running a business in the first place.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You originally said that it was Bush's policies that were responsible for the current economic situation.

Then when asked for specifics you diverted to his attitude and the continued policies of his predecessors.

You did not offer one single policy specific to Bush that is the cause of the current economic situation.

I know it and any reasonable person reading this thread knows it too.

Sorry, today you get an "F" in comprehension and a "F" in economic understanding.

 

[targus]

Sorry, today you get an "F" in comprehension and a "F" in economic understanding.

And still - no specifics.

 

[Crabtownboy]

And still - no specifics.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Surely you are not that obtuse, so you must simply being argumentative. If you really are that obtuse then there is no help. If you are that obtuse you must have been a real gem in school.

 

[targus]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Surely you are not that obtuse, so you must simply being argumentative. If you really are that obtuse then there is no help. If you are that obtuse you must have been a real gem in school.

Instead of giving a benefit of the doubt - how about giving a specific?

 

[NiteShift]

Just like presidents before him he had no energy policy in attempting to lessen our dependence on foreigh oil.

You can't blame him for not trying. In 2001, Bush proposed opening 6 million acres to drilling off the Florida coast. In 2004 he urged passage of an energy bill that would have allowed more drilling in the Gulf coast. In 2005 Bush urged Congress to send him an energy bill promoting increased nuclear energy. "It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again”. In 2008 Bush urged lifting the off-shore ban on oil exploration. He supported drilling in ANWR. In 2008 the Bush Interior Department proposed rules for oil shale development, which was fought by some states.

Neither Bush nor Obama took the bailout far enough.

July of 2009 President Obama declared the stimulus bill a success. "It's done its job," he said.

Do you remember how he fired people who told him the truth; i.e. Paul O'Neill was ousted from Treasury for warning about deficits.

And what do you think would happen to any adviser in the current administration who warned of deficits?

In 2007, with Bush’s prescription drug bill already in place, with two wars, with tax cuts, the deficit was $161 billion. Today, it’s $1.2 trillion.

 

[poncho]

Nah, now that she has been there, watch to see if the GOP jettisons her along with the whole movement, painting them as Conspiracy Theorists.

It began yesterday:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233331
(Article by Johnathan Kay)

And the reaction to this article:

http://trueslant.com/charlesjohnson...arty-movement-is-full-of-conspiracy-theories/



She will be linked to the "kooks," and neutralized by the establishment.

Regards,
BiR

Yeah, I do believe you are right about this. They did the same with Ron Paul. Demonize, marginalize and guilt by association. Anyone who's been paying attention can see that the establishment only has a couple ways of dealing with threats to their order. Palin will be given the boot by the republican arm of the loyal order of globalists without doubt. Soon as her neocon handlers are done with her.

But not before the energy has been drained from the tea party movement, or so they think.

They always try and herd us right back to the phoney left vs right paradigm. A matrix like world of manufactured crisis and corporate authorised truths. A world in which no independent voices will be allowed to upset the established order's apple cart.

Agents of real change are always "neutralized by the establishment".

Something our good friend Matt Wade apparently hasn't figured out yet. I've had a few conversations with Matt in the past and it seems quite likely he hasn't learned to think for himself yet. His much parroting of the "officially authorised corporate truth" is what gives him away. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[poncho]

So how's that tin-foil hat holding up?:laugh:

Well enough that it consistantly exposes your corporate manufactured reality for what it really is. So, I reckon it's holding up quite well. Thank you.

How's that corporate sponsored brainwashing job holding up? Pretty well I see judging by the fact you chose to resort to using the very same mindless tactics of those who manufactured your faux reality for you in the first place. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[NiteShift]

Lots of people are trying to claim the Tea party movement as their own. Candidates around the country are billing themselves as the Tea-Party candidate. Some of them are Truther-friendly. Some are Libertarians, Independents, "Neocons" as you like to say, and others.

Don't forget that the first protesters were a bunch of Seniors who were afraid Obama was going to wreck their Medicare. Nobody else can claim to be the Authentic Tea-Partiers.

 

[poncho]

Lots of people are trying to claim the Tea party movement as their own. Candidates around the country are billing themselves as the Tea-Party candidate. Some of them are Truther-friendly. Some are Libertarians, Independents, "Neocons" as you like to say, and others.

Don't forget that the first protesters were a bunch of Seniors who were afraid Obama was going to wreck their Medicare. Nobody else can claim to be the Authentic Tea-Partiers.

That's one of the dangers of organizing. There is always the chance that you'll be infiltrated and or co-opted. Look what happened to the limited government conservative movement. It was Neo-CONNED! And we got bigger more intrusive government, endless wars, and banker bailouts. To name a few things.

I say endless wars like it's a bad thing knowing full well the majority around here seem to take comfort in them. But hey, I'm still a non interventionist kinda guy like our forefathers who founded this nation.

What can I say? A skunk can't change his stripes. American corporate imperialism just ain't my bag, man.

Sarah Palin is missing the nucleus of what the Tea Party activists are all about. They are not looking for another John McCain or George Bush. While I sympathize with much of Palin's platform, she misses the entire isolationist sentiment of the movement.

Tea party activists want a return to the constitution. While they want to fiercely defend our country, they also do not want to conduct any more pro-active wars that bankrupt the nation. They also value the life of our young men and women more than the profits of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. There are many right leaning independents that will no longer support the use of military force to spread democracy and build nations across the globe.

Here is Mrs. Palin's interview with Chris Wallace on Fox news last Sunday. You could hear the votes dropping from true conservatives across the country when she uttered these words; "Say he decided to declare war on Iran..., which I would like him to do." Her comments were in response to the question how Barack Obama can improve his chances of re-election.

That means that if we elected President Palin, she would most likely declare war on Iran, today! What kind of war Sarah? Many military experts claim that a messy and bloody ground war would be necessary, not just a week of "Shock and Awe" air sorties.

There is a nascent movement in Iran to overthrow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the citizens of that country are using people like Mir-Hossein Mousavi to change their government's attitude towards Israel and the west.

Our country must vigorously defend attacks against our nation and her allies. But demagoguery and jingoism should not be used as a way to score political points. And war must be viewed as the last option of defense, not a way of life or a political ideal.

By the way Sarah, the President can't declare war on anybody, only congress can. But if you do get elected, will you remember which country to invade? Iraq or Iran...maybe you can write in on the back of your glasses.

No need to worry Mahmoud, if Palin's platform in 2012 is more Neo-conservatism, she will mush her way back to Alaska.

SOURCE

 

[poncho]

Lots of people are trying to claim the Tea party movement as their own. Candidates around the country are billing themselves as the Tea-Party candidate. Some of them are Truther-friendly. Some are Libertarians, Independents, "Neocons" as you like to say, and others.

Don't forget that the first protesters were a bunch of Seniors who were afraid Obama was going to wreck their Medicare. Nobody else can claim to be the Authentic Tea-Partiers.

First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were tired of the bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.

I know this because I met--and spoke before--the Tea Party Nation in State after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an Independent candidate for President--with Ron Paul's endorsement, no less. I was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C., to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3854

 

[matt wade]

Poncho, are you Chuck Baldwin? I'm only asking because I'm not sure if your last post wasn't quoted because you are Chuck Baldwin, or because you simply forgot to quote it.