Palin expected to pack arena

Cornbread1 wrote:

Good point.
But what REALLY qualifys a person to be President?
The founding fathers made the requirements quite simple.
I would rather have someone look me in the eye and say "I don't know how to get us out of the mess we're in. But if elected, I'll put politics aside and surround myself with subject matter experts that will help me do whats best for everyone."
But thats just me.
Alright.
Lets get back to the business at hand:
McCain is a commie sellout!!
Obama is a Muslim!!

Very well put. And very funny.

Qualifications wrote:

<quoted text>
Knowing our past, does not mean you are trapped by it. You might remember that schools teach a subject called "history." That is because we are supposed to take lessons from it.
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana.
Some of those lessons we can learn from Lincoln: though he was relatively inexperienced, he was extremely eloquent and articulate. He also was a politician and understood that to get things done, compromises had to be made. Though he told most that he opposed the expansion of slavery, he told some politically important groups that he believed whites were superior to blacks. No person is a saint, especially politicians. All of us are hypocrites to some degree.
About those who say Obama has not done much in the realm of civil rights, most would argue that promoting issues important to poor people -- health care, housing, jobs, etc.-- amounts to civil rights work.
And if we think about it, those issues are important to all of us. Even if you are secure in your house, job and medical care, if many of our fellow citizens are not, then our country is weak.
I don't know about you, but I love my country and want it to be strong.

Farewell topix, nothing more to be said other than welcome Socialism, get ready for the ride. Cheers!!!!

Stephanie dear,
You have many problems on many levels about many things. Here, I'll help you with your first one:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sar...

Oh, and this non-issue did not come about during her governorship. Try a little research first. You'll appear smarter even if you're not.

Love the Obama and Abe Lincoln reference, things are a little more complex now.

Let's get to one of Barack 'Robin Hood' Obama's policies. Let's tax the big corporations more. Here is how this will work: Follow this, if you can.

This is for you liberal morons who do not understand how this works and have never been part of a 'evil' major corporation.

Lets say 'XYZ" corporation pays 4 billion a year in taxes and Robin Hood decides we will tax them 8 billion so everyone can live equally, whether or not they have a job, but we want everyone to live equally.......ie. Socialism.

XYZ Corp. pays their taxes and then immediately the next quarter they lay off 8,000 workers, cut benefits for their retired employees and raise the cost of their product 10%. This will drastically hurt the economy more than stealing the money, the corporation earned.

This is how it works in the business world, far different than the fantasy land you live in.

Do you understand now?

wells wrote:

Love the Obama and Abe Lincoln reference, things are a little more complex now.
Let's get to one of Barack 'Robin Hood' Obama's policies. Let's tax the big corporations more. Here is how this will work: Follow this, if you can.
This is for you liberal morons who do not understand how this works and have never been part of a 'evil' major corporation.
Lets say 'XYZ" corporation pays 4 billion a year in taxes and Robin Hood decides we will tax them 8 billion so everyone can live equally, whether or not they have a job, but we want everyone to live equally.......ie. Socialism.
XYZ Corp. pays their taxes and then immediately the next quarter they lay off 8,000 workers, cut benefits for their retired employees and raise the cost of their product 10%. This will drastically hurt the economy more than stealing the money, the corporation earned.
This is how it works in the business world, far different than the fantasy land you live in.
Do you understand now?

wells,
Unfortunately, most do not, will not and/or cannot understand that fact of business life. When will people learn that businesses don't pay taxes--they merely pass it on as a cost of doing business. After laying off a bunch of folks.

I only hope it will be those that voted for the looming liberal doom and prolonged recession that will result that get canned.

WNCNATIVE wrote:

<quoted text> The difference is that he has done interview after interview and given pointed, well-thought answers. She refuses most interviews, refuses press conferences, and in the interviews she does give she sounds like a moron. I wish she were a guy...she's an embarrassment to intelligent women.

Factcheck.org is sponsored by the Annenburg Foundation. Walter Annenburg was a Republican. He was appointed as an Ambassador to England by Nixon. Read this article from Fastcheck.org about this Alaskan governor and how she really performed her duties. She was an embarassment to Alaska and will be one to the U.S.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_ab...

wells wrote:

Love the Obama and Abe Lincoln reference, things are a little more complex now.
Let's get to one of Barack 'Robin Hood' Obama's policies. Let's tax the big corporations more. Here is how this will work: Follow this, if you can.
This is for you liberal morons who do not understand how this works and have never been part of a 'evil' major corporation.
Lets say 'XYZ" corporation pays 4 billion a year in taxes and Robin Hood decides we will tax them 8 billion so everyone can live equally, whether or not they have a job, but we want everyone to live equally.......ie. Socialism.
XYZ Corp. pays their taxes and then immediately the next quarter they lay off 8,000 workers, cut benefits for their retired employees and raise the cost of their product 10%. This will drastically hurt the economy more than stealing the money, the corporation earned.
This is how it works in the business world, far different than the fantasy land you live in.
Do you understand now?

Sorry, Wells, thousands of history teachers around the world say you can't dismiss the past by waving your hand and claiming it doesn't apply because "things are so much more complex now."

The socialism thing is kind of funny. Serously, guys, by some people's definition any form of government is socialism. Why? Because you take money in the form of taxes from people and give it to other people. My tax money goes to roads in Texas, for example.

What I'm getting at is that it's all a matter of degree. Are you saying corporations should pay no taxes? No, I don't think you are. Are liberals saying corporation taxes should be doubled (as you imply.) No, I don't think they are.

The question is, what is fair? And that is why politics isn't black and white. Currently, corporations here pay pretty low taxes and workers have few protections compared to other western countries. Meanwhile, the income gap between rich and poor has grown here more than most other western countries.

Capitalism is a dynamic economic system. It can lead to a lot of innovation and can help individuals accumulate a lot of wealth. But it also can cause a lot of poverty. Socialism reduces poverty and provides basic necessities to all. It does, however, inhibit industry.

An interesting example is this: we have one of the most innovative health care industries. We've got tremendous technology for treating disease. Yet many citizens have very poor access to health care.

Really, what we have to do is find a balance, where free enterprise isn't crippled, but where we don't cripple the country for the sake of free enterprise.

wells wrote:

Love the Obama and Abe Lincoln reference, things are a little more complex now.
Let's get to one of Barack 'Robin Hood' Obama's policies. Let's tax the big corporations more. Here is how this will work: Follow this, if you can.
This is for you liberal morons who do not understand how this works and have never been part of a 'evil' major corporation.
Lets say 'XYZ" corporation pays 4 billion a year in taxes and Robin Hood decides we will tax them 8 billion so everyone can live equally, whether or not they have a job, but we want everyone to live equally.......ie. Socialism.
XYZ Corp. pays their taxes and then immediately the next quarter they lay off 8,000 workers, cut benefits for their retired employees and raise the cost of their product 10%. This will drastically hurt the economy more than stealing the money, the corporation earned.
This is how it works in the business world, far different than the fantasy land you live in.
Do you understand now?

And since we're discussing this, stuff, let's toss around some ideas:

I hear what you are saying about how corporations simply pass on the pain when taxes go up. What about then the concept of leaving businesses taxes alone or even lowering small business taxes, but raising the taxes on wealthy individuals?

Again, I know you call this a "Robin Hood" approach, but let me take you back to the subject we call "history."

Though Robin Hood was likely not an actual person, he was based on the type of thief that existed during bad economic times under England's Norman kings. The idea that he "gave to the poor" was based on popular sentiment against rich nobility and merchants who controlled most of the wealth and left the rest of the population near starving.

The point is, a capitalistic system depends on a strong country within which to operate. When all the wealth piles up at the the top, the country is not strong.

reasonable wrote:

Stephanie dear,
You have many problems on many levels about many things. Here, I'll help you with your first one:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sar...
Oh, and this non-issue did not come about during her governorship. Try a little research first. You'll appear smarter even if you're not.

Reasonable, thank you for the link to that site. I was about to go look up and see if Palin actually charged rape victims for rape kits because that seemed like one of those internet lies that flies around, and obviously, it was. And just for the sake of clarity, she does believe in teaching sex education in school and covering prevention as well as abstinence. I heard her say it just the other day on tv and she said she didn't know where the media got any idea otherwise.

And all you people getting your panties in a wad because Palin is pro-life and you aren't, take solace in the fact that the VP doesn't have any say over the abortion policy of the US. That issue is totally up to the Legislature to make laws in that regard (federally) and for the states to determine on a local level as long as the state law doesn't conflict with the federal law, and for the Supreme Court to decide to reverse itself on Roe v. Wade. But for the S.Ct. to reverse itself is much more difficult than you would think because a case has to arise under its jurisdiction and make it to the S.Ct. to begin with. So you can relax and quit hating her because she thinks differently from you.

Qualifications wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, Wells, thousands of history teachers around the world say you can't dismiss the past by waving your hand and claiming it doesn't apply because "things are so much more complex now."
The socialism thing is kind of funny. Serously, guys, by some people's definition any form of government is socialism. Why? Because you take money in the form of taxes from people and give it to other people. My tax money goes to roads in Texas, for example.
What I'm getting at is that it's all a matter of degree. Are you saying corporations should pay no taxes? No, I don't think you are. Are liberals saying corporation taxes should be doubled (as you imply.) No, I don't think they are.
\

I don't disagree with some of your points, obviously you are the educated one of the bunch,but I don't think a guy who has worked his butt of for 25 years and already is in the top 1% of the taxpayer should have to support people who don't want to work.

Not saying we shouldn't help people who need it or deserve it,I just think I am tired of supporting the people who 'work the system.'

That is my problem, Senator Obama paints with a very broad brush.

Personally, we are screwed, which ever one of these guys get in. But my education and experiences always tells me to hire the guy with the most experience. It has never failed me in business.

You can always surround them with help, but I don't think the world leaders will really respect Obama, because he will be a doormat when dealing with foreign policy.

I feel McCain will be stern when he has to be and back off when he needs to, somewhere between George Bush and Obama. I think he is the candidate that is more middle of the road.

JMO.

Free wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently you also couldn't explain what makes him more qualified than Palin and resorted to the usual cries of racism and bigotry to try to negate valid questions.

Calling Obama a "racist Muslim" is hardly a "valid question".

WNCnative wrote:

I guess Palin needs Gretchen Wilson to draw in folks! I doubt she could do it on her own, only the Zombies would attend.

It would take a Beatles reunion to get people to go see Biden!

Qualifications,
Do you realize that wealth distribution follows the Pareto principle--80/20? No one knows why. It just does.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2906.html

May I correctly assume you favor some form of a more "equal" distribution? Even if all wealth could be distributed equally overnight, within a generation it would be right back to an 80/20 distribution.

Some people can't hold on to a nickel with both hands. Others have a knack for making decisions that create wealth.

How often would you suggest this great redistribution occur? Curious.

Jerry L wrote:

<quoted text>
Factcheck.org is sponsored by the Annenburg Foundation. Walter Annenburg was a Republican. He was appointed as an Ambassador to England by Nixon. Read this article from Fastcheck.org about this Alaskan governor and how she really performed her duties. She was an embarassment to Alaska and will be one to the U.S.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_ab...

the link reads like one woman with an axe to gring. Big deal. Were you equally upset when Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, et al pretty much had the same tale about a former president? Point is, finding someone in politics to say nasty things about someone else in politics is a bit like going to a car dealership and finding cars.

And Walter Annenberg is dead, so your point? Speaking of his foundation, isn't it the one where Obama and Billy Ayers teamed up to squander millions of dollars on educational boondoggles? You do know that their effort was deemed a failure by the Annenberg Challenge's own oversight group?

Factcheck, by the way, roots out things on both sides. Your guy is a frequent guest on the site.

reasonable wrote:

Qualifications,
Do you realize that wealth distribution follows the Pareto principle--80/20? No one knows why. It just does.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2906.html
May I correctly assume you favor some form of a more "equal" distribution? Even if all wealth could be distributed equally overnight, within a generation it would be right back to an 80/20 distribution.
Some people can't hold on to a nickel with both hands. Others have a knack for making decisions that create wealth.
How often would you suggest this great redistribution occur? Curious.

There is no universal ratio for how wealth is distributed. Go to Denmark then go to India. In one place you'll see a large middle class, and in the other you'll see a few with great wealth and most living in astounding poverty.

Wealth redistribution happens every day -- every time you pay any form of tax. How you do it and to what degree is a political question. I would argue that we are at a point when the extremely wealthy could afford to kick a few more bucks into the system. Otherwise, what's left of the middle class ends up subsidizing the poor.

Here's an example: WalMart doesn't want to give its employees health care because it's too expensive. Arguably, if they did, they would have to raise their prices. But if their workers don't have health care, guess what they do? They end up on government-assisted programs, like Medicaid. Guess who pays for that?

Qualifications wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no universal ratio for how wealth is distributed. Go to Denmark then go to India. In one place you'll see a large middle class, and in the other you'll see a few with great wealth and most living in astounding poverty.
Wealth redistribution happens every day -- every time you pay any form of tax. How you do it and to what degree is a political question. I would argue that we are at a point when the extremely wealthy could afford to kick a few more bucks into the system. Otherwise, what's left of the middle class ends up subsidizing the poor.
Here's an example: WalMart doesn't want to give its employees health care because it's too expensive. Arguably, if they did, they would have to raise their prices. But if their workers don't have health care, guess what they do? They end up on government-assisted programs, like Medicaid. Guess who pays for that?

When you can write for the Harvard Business School and be published, let me know, OK? Your opinion doesn't jibe with the reality of wealth distribution as detailed in the article I cited above. Did you read it? It doesn't appear as if you did. Again, I ask you how often do you think a redistribution of wealth should occur given that it will revert to the approximate 80/20 distribution in a relatively short time?

Still curious.

MooseSlayer wrote:

Is she Caribou Barbie going to bring the props, I mean kids in designer clothes????

I sure hope she brings the kids because she has a good looking family and I am sure she is proud of them. It sounds like you have to use phrases from someone else since you used Caribou Barbie. It sounds like you are jealous of Governor Palin and her family.

G-hogg wrote:

<quoted text>
comrade chuck is a an aclu member and sworn to the socialization of the US. He's at war with the flag, the Constitution, and any who cling to those ideas.

Forgive me for butt'in in but, thanks for clarifying because I was thinking WTH is up with Chuck.
Calling your fellow Americans enemies because they have different political views is atrocious & absurd.

alekas wrote:

<quoted text>
the link reads like one woman with an axe to gring. Big deal. Were you equally upset when Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, et al pretty much had the same tale about a former president? Point is, finding someone in politics to say nasty things about someone else in politics is a bit like going to a car dealership and finding cars.
And Walter Annenberg is dead, so your point? Speaking of his foundation, isn't it the one where Obama and Billy Ayers teamed up to squander millions of dollars on educational boondoggles? You do know that their effort was deemed a failure by the Annenberg Challenge's own oversight group?
Factcheck, by the way, roots out things on both sides. Your guy is a frequent guest on the site.

Doesn't make a difference if she had an axe to grind. Her statements were proven correct. If you cheat or screw up and get caught, you're up for public scrutiny, and yes, just like Clinton

Qualifications wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's an example: WalMart doesn't want to give its employees health care because it's too expensive. Arguably, if they did, they would have to raise their prices. But if their workers don't have health care, guess what they do? They end up on government-assisted programs, like Medicaid. Guess who pays for that?

Your WalMart argument is way behind the times, note, this article is over a year old, try and keep up.

Health Plan Overhauled at Wal-Mart

“On face value, this looks like a very significant change and improvement,” said Ron Pollack, president of Families USA, a health care advocacy group in Washington that has been critical of Wal-Mart.
..........
It is unclear how many of the 125,000 Wal-Mart workers without health coverage would sign up. But industry analysts said the program represented an upgrade for the 636,000 employees who already receive health insurance through Wal-Mart. They said it could force the company’s discount-retailing competitors to offer more generous plans for their own workers.
..........
Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health and a former benefits consultant, called it “a very good plan,” saying that “parts of it, like the $4 generics, are game-changing for the industry.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/business/19...