'SNL' sends up VP debate with Fey, Queen Latifah

Here is the SNL skit on Fannie Mae banking crisis NBC pulled from youtube

http://ifreedomtrail.blogspot.com/2008/10/nbc...

bryts wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW... you couldn't make my point more clearly than with that line right there!!!
"BTW - what joke did Palin tell (intentionally that is)? "
For that, I was referring to the "lifeline" quote.

Tina Fey said that. I didn't hear Palin say it.

And yes, if Tina can point out the absurdity of this woman to enough people - it just might help make the difference. The matierial pretty much writes itself.

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
In the 2006 election, the people voted dems into power mainly to end the war in Iraq. Congress wouldn't pull the funding lest they be accused of "not supporting the troops" - even though the best thing for the troops would be to get them out of there and get them back home with their families.
The folks are mad at Congress for not ending this war. The dems only hold a slight majority in Congress.
I wouldn't brag over W's approval rating - it is one of the lowest in history. But I understand that there isn't much to brag about. We call that "damning him with faint praise."

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

Bush Approval rating is at 15.9%

Glasnos wrote:

<quoted text>
The majority party controls the committees where bills originate. Many bills never make it out of committee due to partisanship.
The elite in this case are the dem leaders who control the Senate and congress

Which makes the elite from 2001 to 2007 the Reps. and they had a Rep. Pres. So that any supposed mistakes made in the Clinton Admin. they had 6 yrs of TOTAL control, including the committees. So what's your point. They sat on their greedy hands for 6 yrs, then deservedly lost control of Congress so they now can blame the Dems. for their 6 yrs. of screw-ups. Unbelievable; and they still hold the Exec. Branch. Which include the Sec. of the Treasury( nice Job) Dir. of SEC.(really good job - even McCain wanted to fire him). And ignore their oversight responsibilities; you see it really shouldn't take new legislation to get people to do their jobs. De-regulation doesn't mean the Rep. Admin. should simply give Wall St. carte blanche; which is precisely what they did.

In The Tank wrote:

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the New York Times are all 100% in the tank for Obama. Whatever it takes to get him elected, they will do it.

McCan't and Pain are just that - LOSERS! It doesn't take a village to see what IDIOTS they are -- And, anyone who supports them is C R A Z Y and easily lead... you fool.

Good deal wrote:

NBC will stop at nothing to get people to vote for their candidate, if Obama can't win on his own let's try to make the opponents look foolish. Of course this works with the mentality of the SNL crowd that would vote for Hitler if it meant "change"
It's nice to see pinheads like Tina Fey and Bruce Springsteen encouraging young morons to vote without doing their homework. They can keep their "change"

How long have you been living in America, man?

Darrell Hammond did the greatest Bill Clinton in history. I voted for Clinton and could not wait to see Hammond do him!

This is what SNL has done since Chevy Chase started in on Gerald Ford. This is part of the deal when you decide to become a candidate for the second highest office in the land. You better grow some thick skin and bear it.

A long as we have freedoms in this land, we will have people in politics being made fun of.

You have the choice to turn your TV to something else, but the very fact that you either watched it, or heard about it shows that you are at least curious about it.

Job done!

Glasnos wrote:

<quoted text>
The majority party controls the committees where bills originate. Many bills never make it out of committee due to partisanship.
The elite in this case are the dem leaders who control the Senate and congress

What makes them elite? Is that like having 9 houses or 13 cars? I don't get it.

parlo wrote:

<quoted text>Then why was Quit your whining!!!!
There is nothing more pathetic than a right winger acting like a sore loser.

You mean like the Dems after the 2000 election?

And for those who think the Governor of a state with the population of Alaska (US Census 2006 estimate 670,053) isn't qualified to run for Vice President, then what does that say about the former Governor of Vermont (US Census population 2006 estimate 623,908) who ran for President?

Just a question about political credentials, nothing more, nothing less.

And while I'm on the topic of Governor Dean, apparently the Democratic Party thinks enough of his politics to make him the Chairman of the DNC.

Now don't misuderstand, I'm sure they have their reasons, but how can you be critical of Governor Palin on the grounds that she was an unknown quantity prior to the current campaign. I mean, really how many people outside of Vermont had heard of Howard Dean?

And who heard of Jimmy Carter prior to the '76 election? Or Bill Clinton in 92. Same same.

I think most people question Palin's ability to serve based on things she says - and questions she either refuses to or is unable to answer.

A guy like Clinton came out of nowhere but he was impressive, not unlike Obama. I haven't heard anyone question Obama's intellect or grasp of the issues. Agreeing with him is a separate matter.

Palin comes off as an intellectual lighweight. She dodges questions and demonstrates little or no understanding of any of the issues. She has 2 or 3 memorized talking points and several attacks for her opponents. Doesn't seem much else there there. Her schtick is wearing thin.

Re the 2000 election:

The US Supreme Court ultimately decided that election by overruling the Florida Supreme Court, thereby stopping the recount.

Also:

"The vote was certified according to Florida state election law by Katherine Harris, the Republican Secretary of State who had been the Florida co-chair of Bush's campaign.[32] Because Bush's younger brother, Jeb Bush, was the governor of Florida, there were allegations that Harris and Jeb Bush had manipulated the election to favor the governor's brother."[33][34]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
Tina Fey said that. I didn't hear Palin say it.
And yes, if Tina can point out the absurdity of this woman to enough people - it just might help make the difference. The matierial pretty much writes itself.

I didn't see the Couric interview... I thought i saw a clip where Palin did say that, however, as close as Tina looks to her in character, it's possible it was the skit..
And again, thanks for backing up my comments about influence hollywood has... Absolutely incredible that people are foolish enough to praise ACTORS when it comes to politics.

Well, there's no rule saying you have to be intelligent to vote...

Glasnos wrote:

<quoted text>
Bush favorability rating = 26%
Democrat controlled congress = 9%
At this point Bush has three times the support congress does.
Who are the morons who voted for Pelosi and Reid I ask?

So you think because 26 is higher than 9, that somehow makes it good.
This is the result of a failed two party system both parties are backed by the biggest banks ,corporations,the same people whom also own the Media ,and whose interests include the bottom line $$$$$$$, and exclude any damn thing that would help you,me or the common man.

It doesn't matter which one wins, BECAUSE THEY BOTH WORK FOR THE SAME PEOPLE.

I would say your logic is flawed and all those numbers are pathetic and abysmal in a country were the supposed majority rules.

Vodka comrades?

To former res: I don't recall anything about Jimmy Carter, but surely you remember Bill Clinton's nominating speech at the '88 convention? The one that went on and on and on? Clinton, therefore, was not an unknown quantity.

The point is, there were critics of Palin BEFORE she had the chance to prove or disprove anything. And that is what I was asking about.

Concerning your comments about the US Supreme Court's decision on the 2000 election, it sounds like you would have been just fine with the Florida Supreme Court and their decision, you just didn't want to see Bush win. Of course Harris certified the vote – that was her job as Secretary of State. Who did you expect to do it? Newspapers in Florida did a check on the votes if memory serves and they confirmed the Bush victory.

The Wikipedia "allegations" you mentioned were just that, allegations, not facts, but the fact that you quote them with the thinly-disguised hope no one will notice says a lot about your preference for anything that casts a poor light on George Bush. As I said, the Dems continue to whine about 2000, but God forbid anyone remind them that Gore lost. GET OVER IT ALREADY! And, please, no more sarcastic anti-Bush, anti-McCain, anti-Palin (e.g., "intellectual lightweight")remarks. I’ve tried very hard to keep my comments impersonal so I know it’s possible. You want to be critical, fine, but keep it honest.

In another post you asked me to show you an unbiased source. I thought that I had when I offered you the Time article. If you read it closely you would have seen that the author, a liberal, took pains to show that both sides had something worthy to contribute. That comes as close to unbiased as I have seen and provides a template worth following.

Hey, if Obama wins I won't be happy, I may even be a bit scared, but unless he commits a crime I'll accept him as president and honor the office, regardless. I would expect the same from everyone no matter who wins.

Fair enough?

bryts wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't see the Couric interview... I thought i saw a clip where Palin did say that, however, as close as Tina looks to her in character, it's possible it was the skit..
And again, thanks for backing up my comments about influence hollywood has... Absolutely incredible that people are foolish enough to praise ACTORS when it comes to politics.
Well, there's no rule saying you have to be intelligent to vote...

It was the skit.

You call it acting - I call it satire. And it has been around for a long time. When done well, it is both entertaining and enlightening.

Thank you Tina Fey.

Ret-PD wrote:

To former res: I don't recall anything about Jimmy Carter, but surely you remember Bill Clinton's nominating speech at the '88 convention? The one that went on and on and on? Clinton, therefore, was not an unknown quantity.
The point is, there were critics of Palin BEFORE she had the chance to prove or disprove anything. And that is what I was asking about.
Concerning your comments about the US Supreme Court's decision on the 2000 election, it sounds like you would have been just fine with the Florida Supreme Court and their decision, you just didn't want to see Bush win. Of course Harris certified the vote – that was her job as Secretary of State. Who did you expect to do it? Newspapers in Florida did a check on the votes if memory serves and they confirmed the Bush victory.
The Wikipedia "allegations" you mentioned were just that, allegations, not facts, but the fact that you quote them with the thinly-disguised hope no one will notice says a lot about your preference for anything that casts a poor light on George Bush. As I said, the Dems continue to whine about 2000, but God forbid anyone remind them that Gore lost. GET OVER IT ALREADY! And, please, no more sarcastic anti-Bush, anti-McCain, anti-Palin (e.g., "intellectual lightweight")remarks. I’ve tried very hard to keep my comments impersonal so I know it’s possible. You want to be critical, fine, but keep it honest.
In another post you asked me to show you an unbiased source. I thought that I had when I offered you the Time article. If you read it closely you would have seen that the author, a liberal, took pains to show that both sides had something worthy to contribute. That comes as close to unbiased as I have seen and provides a template worth following.
Hey, if Obama wins I won't be happy, I may even be a bit scared, but unless he commits a crime I'll accept him as president and honor the office, regardless. I would expect the same from everyone no matter who wins.
Fair enough?

Obama also gave a convention speech and I compared him with Clinton. I don't consider one speech enough to make someone a known quantity. It's often someone to "keep an eye on." Someone with promise.

Sure people were skeptical about Palin when she was chosen. I think this is understandalble as with any unknown. The subsequent impression she has made is what I thought we were discussing. My mistake.

Yes, I wanted Gore to be elected - and yes many people still think he won. We will never know for sure.(Though I like him, I also blame Nader.)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source - and does no reseach of its own. It presents the findings of others - as with all encylopedias. And one is always free to check out the sources - and accept or reject them as you wish.

The Time essay was an observational opinion piece and I liked it and praised it and appreciated it - and I agreed it was very fair.

My comments represent my true thoughts on this election. This is serious stuff. And we're all adults here. You speak of civility, I still maintain that one of the most cynical, insulting and dangerous moves of this election was the decision of McCain to choose Palin for his ticket. This does not bode well for future "executive decsions."

Do I need to apologize for my opinion (or expressing it), in America? I hope not.

bryts wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't see the Couric interview... I thought i saw a clip where Palin did say that, however, as close as Tina looks to her in character, it's possible it was the skit..
And again, thanks for backing up my comments about influence hollywood has... Absolutely incredible that people are foolish enough to praise ACTORS when it comes to politics.
Well, there's no rule saying you have to be intelligent to vote...

...and if you missed the Couric interview, then you really missed something. It is your citizen responsibility to view it - either on CBS website or youtube.

And Obama/Biden would absolutely LOVE it if you had to be intelligent to vote. The election would probably be over.

As I have said before, unfortunately you just don't get it.

I have posed questions in this and other posts to statements you make and yet you avoid addressing most of them. I pointed out that Clinton was known before his nomination – Palin was not. You had tried to say Clinton was an unknown to the same degree. I reminded you he was not. Still, you avoid recognizing a direct response to one of your own statements.

The statement that we will never know for sure who won in 2000 is ridiculous. We know who as surely as the result of any other election. Just because you don't approve of the outcome doesn't change that. If the upcoming election is close and Obama wins, does that mean Republicans should rant and rave? The system of our government, which includes the judiciary, made a decision. As I said earlier, get over it.

If, as you say, Wikipedia is a source that by its very nature cannot be trusted, why do you often quote it? And do you honestly think that all other encyclopedias fail to validate their contents? I guess you are only familiar with the Internet kind, but trust me the written collections like Brittanica do check out the info before publication. It's a reputation thing.

I suspect I'm just a bit older than you. I've been watching presidential campaigns since 1960 and except for two earlier Vice Presidential nominees, one Democrat and one Republican, I have never seen such negative commentary. In the case of Palin, it has gotten at times to be downright vicious. In fact, one of the circular problems with this kind of behavior is the candidates hear it from the public and the public hears it from the candidates while everyone says it has no place in the election. Bull!

Your commentary about McCain's choice being insulting is perplexing. If you support Obama, you should be glad that the choice is so bad – it means more votes for your guy and therefore you should be thanking McCain. If she's no threat, relax, but if she brings a point of view that many people feel comfortable with, why do you begrudge them their choice? Your comments are examples of the kind of talk I have grown so tired of hearing.

Things like the demonstrators at the Republican convention who destroyed property in the name of what, democracy? Then they get into the convention center and begin shouting protests. Care to tell me how many right wing nuts did the same at the Democratic convention? I believe the answer is none. And the hecklers continue at McCain and Palin events. I have not heard of any at an Obama or Biden event. I suspect the hecklers are not necessarily supporting the Republican ticket.

Honest critics of any candidate will concentrate on KNOWN issues, not guesses and personality. You have consistently used the talking points I hear all too often on MSNBC, read on the Huffington site and hear from the mouths of supercilious pundits who proclaim knowledge. I would have hoped for better and more independent thinking. I was mistaken.

The reference to cynicism is a red herring in that I obviously suggested that those of us who participate in these exchanges show the courtesy so lacking today. Is that too much to ask?

The comment about being adults smacks of sarcasm. And there is no need to apologize for opinions, merely for the manner in which they are expressed.

It's been fun, but I leave you to others. Bye.

Ex-republicans supports Obama-Biden 08

Has anyone seen the news where Palin repeats over and over again all day long, that Obama is likely a terrorist ? It is sick shit. So non partisn. She should be arrested for her inflamitory statements that insights anger and fuels people to hurt Obama. Someone actually yelled Kill him. I am not proud to be an American when people running for the highest office suggest hatetred. It is beyond me to believe these people can be non partisan. They want americans to be at war with eachother ? It is so disgraceful to lie and make an honest Man appear to be horrable. I get it if someone wants to win on political ideas that would help americans. The person with the best ideas should won. But to lie, disgrace, and call someone a potential terroist is usually saved for other countrys. A sign will go up in my yard tomarrow. Arrest Palin for insighting fear, threats and war in our own country .