When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AFSarge
14 years ago
It’s not hard to see why the left is sooooo freaking afraid of this lady!
What a great speech! I can see why some of the Obots (2) walked out saying it was “awful” while others were proclaiming her to be “brilliant”.
I knew when she resigned the Governor’s office she was doing the right thing by taking herself out of the bulls eye, under their radar. She’s showing us that she will be in charge of her message. I love that she chose a venue which traditionally does not allow the media input. She has to keep them at bay while she builds…interestingly enough, while 0zer0 crumbles. They’ve shown that their only agenda with regard to her future is to bring her down.
Go Sarah!
southernsue
14 years ago
i just pray for sarah and her family. if sarah is on the ticket i will vote for her.
i pray for our GOD to intervene in this horrible administration!
also, remember that obama is half white and half kenyan or muslim or something, but not american black.
URI
14 years ago
Is Henry Kissinger helping her with his contacts in Asia? If so, it is Kissinger vs. Soros?
Palin just told the Asian markets that they may never get their money back from the Obama administration.
Missy
14 years ago
Gutsy gal, lots there to think about in the short version, wish we could have heard the entire 90 minute speech, instead we get Khadafi. Wow, standing in Hong Kong taking China to task and praises our country, Obama stands in New York and attacks…America. Contrast noted and doesn’t she have impecible timing, what a weapon her Facebook page has become, what’s the score now?
URI
14 years ago
Missy: Currently, as of now there are 897,706 supporters of Sarah Palin and growing!
Once in awhile I check in at Conservatives4Palin and get the scoop. I was thinking of her critique of healthcare and other issues she brings up in Facebook to take on current Obama policies. Sends them scrambling.
Aleric
14 years ago
She is about to get another one in a few minutes.
She is starting to refine her image the way she wants and not the way the limp wristed McCain handlers wanted her to be. Next stop the White House.
wesmorgan1
14 years ago
It should be noted that Palin’s excerpt is just that – an excerpt. Here’s what she didn’t put on her Facebook page, according to NBC Los Angeles, citing the WSJ. The funny thing is that the WSJ rewrote their article of yesterday, removing the Palin quotes in which she attacked Obama for “utopian sounding” campaign promises, blamed the financial crisis on the Fed’s low-interest policy, and pushed for elimination of the capital gains and estate taxes. However, the rewritten WSJ article does point out that Palin specifically told her Asian audience (in their words) “that President Barack Obama had weakened American influence in Asia.” It also points out that she specifically criticized the recent decision to stop purchasing the F-22 Raptor.
Why wouldn’t she quote the excerpts where she openly criticized the current Administration?
It’s simple. She went to Hong Kong (that’s part of Communist China now, remember), brought domestic policy arguments with her, and specifically criticized a sitting President’s foreign policy from foreign soil. She knows (or figured out after the fact) that that’s not kosher.
We heard lots of criticism when then-candidate Obama spoke abroad, and he didn’t say anything as directly confrontational as this. Will we hear that same “water’s edge” criticism now?
wesmorgan1
14 years ago
Oh, and I thought that this, from breitbart.com, was really interesting:
CLSA, an arm of French bank Credit Agricole, said it closed Palin’s session to the media after she indicated that she would have to adjust her speech if reporters were present.
It’s one thing to take only pre-submitted questions (which she did), but “I have to change my speech if reporters are present?”
Patvann
14 years ago
It’s one thing to take only pre-submitted questions (which she did), but “I have to change my speech if reporters are present?”
It means the speech would have to be shortened, to make time for the reporters asking her if she’s has a paternity test done on Trig yet, or when she’ll apologize for committing crimes against wolves and fish.
Obama goes abroad and criticizes the entire history of America ALONG with the (then) sitting president, WHILE HE WAS A CANDIDATE.
If you’ll notice, Palin is not a candidate for anything, nor is she a government official.
Other than whining about what was in a bloody facebook page, was there anything in her speech that was inaccurate? Must not be, because you haven’t mentioned any in now two posts. Or maybe it’s just personal for you…
It’s simple. She went to Hong Kong (that’s part of Communist China now, remember), brought domestic policy arguments with her, and specifically criticized a sitting President’s foreign policy from foreign soil. She knows (or figured out after the fact) that that’s not kosher.
I would like to run some tests on you, to determine the level of mind-reading you possess. I think I could win a Nobel.
URI
14 years ago
Wesmorgan:
You have not read my blogg…The only thing that is sacred to Asians is money..not communism or Budha but money. The 700 Billion dollars of Obama’s stimulus money was loaned from the Chinese…and they won’t get that money back and you and I will never see that money either because it has been stolen under our noses. That was the message tha Sarah Palin delivered to them yesterday..Do business with the Conservative America and get your money back or do business with the marxist regime of Obama and say Adios to your mula…
PS: It helps to read the speech.
wesmorgan1
14 years ago
PatVann, we’ve criticized even private citizens when they’ve gone abroad to take shots at the current government; Ramsey Clark comes to mind, for his fringe activities during the Bush Administration. Why shouldn’t a prominent (if currently inactive) politician not be subject to the same standard? Don’t get me wrong, Palin had some interesting things to say about global economics, but getting into specifics of domestic political argument on foreign soil would seem a Bad Thing, regardless of one’s position on the left/right axis.
Uri, I’d seriously love to read the speech – where may I find it in its entirety?
URI
14 years ago
@wesmorgan1: Go to Facebook and login and you can read the speech without becaming a supporter of Sarah Palin. However, I have noticed that since 9:30 Am today her supporters have grown by 243!. The speech must have something to do with it. It is now 897,949!
I disagree with you that Mrs. Palin should be polite or any conservative when dealing with the Obama Administration. You fight them! Remember, you are dealing with Marxists and they are thugs. No level of civilty gets to them. This is war and we the conservative bloggers are going to win this one. If this is a new world for them, by in my book, I still like to fight thugs the old fashion way. Hit them were it hurst the most and put preassure.
PS: To get a better understanding of who you are dealing with/against also visit
@wesmorgan1: The big difference, as I see it, (I know, obviously stupid, racist…as well as a woman…for you so-called “progressive” misogynists) is Sarah Palin criticized an administration but pointedly gave praise to our country and culture. We get to speak out against administrative policies and political actions in America, at least for now. Insulting and tearing down the country, as Obama has, on foreign soil borders on…well you know, the “T” word. Have you ever heard any other foreign leader criticize the country he or she is hired/elected/installed to represent at home or abroad? 0zer0 is no Winston Churchill but the contrast between an American hater and a true British patriot is stark. Churchill loved his country and its people even when he wasn’t personally popular.
BTW, I didn’t hear that she called him derogatory names or called him a…gasp…Muslim President for Life as his friend from Libya did. Funny how all the Muslims recognize a brother.
@wesmorgan1: “criticized a sitting President’s foreign policy from foreign soil. She knows (or figured out after the fact) that that’s not kosher.
We heard lots of criticism when then-candidate Obama spoke abroad, and he didn’t say anything as directly confrontational as this. Will we hear that same “water’s edge” criticism now?”
Like every other tradition for civility and good citizenship Dems like Carter, Clinton and Obama shattered them long ago.
It’s soooo funny to hear you talk about them now. A little late I would say.
It reminds me of the guy who called in to Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday and said we shouldn’t criticize Obama because “we are a nation at war.” I laughed so hard!
Wes: Save your hypocrisy for your little lib friends who won’t remember the garbage that was thrown at Bush for eight years or won’t care about the contradictions so evident in your statement.
wesmorgan1
14 years ago
URI, you said, “To get a better understanding of who you are dealing with/against…” I’m not “dealing with” you or “against you.” We’re just talking. For the record, I don’t like everything Obama is doing (or has done), but that’s true (for me) of any politician; I certainly supported President Bush on several issues, too.
PatVann, you asked, “Other than whining about what was in a bloody facebook page, was there anything in her speech that was inaccurate?” Can we start with her notion that “government interference” alone was responsible for the financial crisis? I don’t know with certainty; they haven’t released a full transcript. What I was “whining about in a facebook page” was the excerpts Palin herself released. Now, it has been very interesting to see quotes emerging; the WSJ has rewritten their articles, removing certain quotes in favor of others, and Politico has additional quotes, in which she criticized the Administration for the C-17 and F-22 cuts AND misstated the status of DoD funding for next year. I’d like nothing better than a full transcript, instead of these dribs and drabs that keep surfacing.
Ann, you wrote, “The big difference, as I see it, (I know, obviously stupid, racist…as well as a woman…for you so-called “progressive” misogynists)…” The only thing I will say to that is that I don’t play those cards. Disagreement doesn’t mean that either of us is stupid. Criticizing Obama’s policies or actions doesn’t make one racist. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Look, Palin had some interesting things to say, and a good chunk of her speech (from what I’ve seen of it – Facebook only has excerpts) was appropriate commentary. I simply thought that going into foreign policy and national security issues (and, for that matter, domestic taxation issues) on foreign soil was a bit much. I fully expect most of the folks here to disagree with my view, but that doesn’t make me a socialist, and it doesn’t make you a fascist, and it makes none of us stupid or racist.
wesmorgan1
14 years ago
Mike wrote:
Wes: Save your hypocrisy for your little lib friends who won’t remember the garbage that was thrown at Bush for eight years or won’t care about the contradictions so evident in your statement.
I, for one, didn’t throw “garbage” at Bush, even when I disagreed with his policies or positions. I don’t throw everyone here in some “rightist” bucket, and I’d appreciate not being thrown in some “leftie” bucket.
Patvann
14 years ago
Wesmorgan
I can see that you are trying to be open minded in this, and I for one appreciate it. I too want to see the whole transcript, and I’m sure we will soon. I’ve been collecting the different excepts, and probably have 80% of it, but let’s wait for it all, and we can come back to particulars, if you like. I’m sure I can find things I disagree with as well, because there is NO politician that is 100%.
Insofar as the government action causing (etc….)
Put it this way, if we rolled back every law written, pertaining to how banks and investment-houses operate, back to the first Community Investment Act, and just after the S&L crisis, NONE of these problems would have occurred. The laws and protections put in place at that time were very good. Most of the deregulation happened under Clinton, in cahoots with the Repubs in Congress. Bush/McCain tried 17 times to roll these back, and got stymied by leaders in both party’s, but mostly Dems. Her word: “government” did not single out a particular party.
THAT is what Palin was referring to.
I had initially felt the cuts to those aircraft programs were stupid, but because I’ve seen no large outcry from the AirForce, I am willing to sit on the fence about it. I could make good cases for either side of the argument.
CoCo Joe
14 years ago
It tickles me so to watch liberal blood pressure rise.
Mine never rises, which I highly reccommend to all conservatives. It makes watching them become apoplectic so much more fun.
To keep your pressure down just remember:
You’re right and they’re, well…. not.
PS: Go Sarah!
URI
14 years ago
Wesmorgan1: Could you in a nutshell tell me what ideas do you support that comes from B.O?
Let’s name 5.
Tom N
14 years ago
I agree with Captain Zero over at Hotair. She may be the new leader for the free world. I don’t think anyone else can fill that role at this time especially after her speech in Hong Kong
Wes: The funny thing is that the WSJ rewrote their article of yesterday, removing the Palin quotes in which she attacked Obama for “utopian sounding” campaign promises, blamed the financial crisis on the Fed’s low-interest policy, and pushed for elimination of the capital gains and estate taxes.
Wes, you keep saying she was criticizing the Obama admin. What you evidently do not know is that the Fed low-interest policy she is criticizing (rightfully, as part of the “perfect storm” of events that lead to the housing crash) is the policy of Greenspan during Bush’s admin after 911. Between the easy money and low rates, it drove up housing appreciation to the toxic levels we live in now. How you tie that to the Obama admin is a stretch even the most minimally informed wouldn’t attempt.
Today both Bush’s and Obama’s Bernanke has still boxed himself into a corner… trapped into forever low rates without great repercussions to rock the economic world yet again. He’s eyeing the perfect moment to raise the rates needed to defray inflation, but knows the minute he does, he tanks the housing market again. I’m telling you right now… we are all sitting on the toxic mortgages of the next crash when the rates rise in the next couple of years…. or as soon as October when Bernanke stops buying the MBSs. Rock and hard place… bite the bullet on overleveraged housing for a few years and eat a few million more short sales and foreclosures, or suffer runaway inflation. Housing will be the sacrificial lamb… just as soon as they cushion it’s next fall a bit.
Criticizing Obama for “utopian sounding” campaign promises is also nothing earth shatteringly new to the Chinese… nor is it arguable as fact. All his promises are “utopian” fantasy. Hang, even the Chinese are economically more capitalist than Obama. Unlike the O’faithful, the Chinese are painfully aware of Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending, and Bernanke’s printing presses running 24/7/365 with fake US dollars. There’s no “spilling of beans” here.
And the cure does include elimination of capital gains and estate taxes.
So I suggest Palin merely shot straight about the current financial situation, and the US’s errors along the way for the past decade and a half.. and it’s reckless spending now. I’d say the Chinese have viewed the summer of unlikely activists attending tea parties, and the loud cry of dissent. No surprise there are American voices, adding to the those of the Chinese, dismayed at the pure abandonment of fiscal responsbility in the name of nanny welfare.
The world is waiting the hear the voice of one who hears from the Living God, the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit – the 3 in One God. But many have closed their minds to understanding and locked into repetitive mind-blinding mantras. Many have deadened their understanding to a God that can be One but 3. But as we are created in God’s image is this really so hard to fathom? Is not a Father, also a husband, and a son, all at the same time and all in the one person – 3 in 1? Is a son inferior to his father in person hood because he came from and after his father? Are they not each equal in their manhood though different in their ages and agendas?
As we are body, soul and spirit, so we reflect in our humanity the very nature of our Triune Creator God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
No wonder a mere woman in whom dwells this triune God, causes a crisis and triggers trembling across the nation, in those who oppose not just her politics but her God.
Sarah’s humanity, warts and all is available for all to see. Not so the President with his polished performance, ringing rhetoric and studied statesmanship (plus TelePrompter).
Yet despite Sarah Palin’s well publicized, criticized and exaggerated weaknesses, she remains the Democrats Public Enemy #1. Why so much ado about nothing? Reminds me a bit of the winsome Queen Mother who Hitler described as the most dangerous woman in all England. Why so much fear for a woman they despise and ridicule? Could it be they fear the greater reality of the Living God who lives within her, that they know, even though subconsciously, they are dealing with a power greater than them all?
As it’s recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:27-31 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
Could it be that the Obamocrats are now awaking to the fact that they backed the wrong horse? Forget about playing Carters ‘colour’ card, it’s the CONTENT OF HIS CHARACTER that is now being questioned. He’s still the same colour as when America first voted him in, but the facade is flaking and what’s being exposed is not what was being sold to the voting public. Sarah, while she may have changed tracks, is staying the course, and she’s still the same ‘horse’ and being a Republican – that would have to be the ‘Right’ horse – you can’t say ‘neigh’ to that!
GO GIRL!
GOD BLESS YOU SARAH!
AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
wesmorgan1
14 years ago
MataHarley wrote:
So I suggest Palin merely shot straight about the current financial situation, and the US’s errors along the way for the past decade and a half.. and it’s reckless spending now.
So, her recommendations for repeal of the capital gains and estate taxes (which, of course, she called the “death tax”) were all just par for the course? Her criticism of specific national defense decisions, like the C-17 and F-22 cutbacks, were “shooting straight about the current financial situation?” I will, respectfully, disagree.
I will also take issue with her general point about “government intervention” being the major factor in the crisis. Most folks put a HUGE chunk of blame squarely on Wall Street, and specifically mention the effectively unregulated markets in which credit default swaps and other derivatives were traded. Palin even contradicted herself (to some degree) later in her speech, when she said:
Now even Milton Friedman, he recognized that the free market is truly free when there is a level playing field for all participants, and good financial regulations aim to provide the transparency that we need to ensure the level playing field does exist, but we need not, we need to make sure that this regulatory reform that we’re talking about is aimed at the problems on Wall Street and won’t attack Main Street.
So, government intervention was the problem, but there are problems on Wall Street that must be corrected by government intervention, but those problems on Wall Street didn’t cause the crisis in any way, but we need regulation to ensure a level playing field? She endorses Friedman’s view after opening with “we don’t want more government action”? Can you see where I find that, well, unconvincing?
I don’t think it’s going to be productive to go any further in our discussion unless/until we get a full transcript. It’s ridiculous to try to discuss things based on different sets of quotes from different parts of the speech. It doesn’t help that the news outlets are revising their articles to add some quotes and remove others; for instance, the WSJ changed their entire article (and quote selection) to eliminate Palin’s specific complaints against the Obama administration. What’s the point of THAT? Let’s get a transcript.
Wes, you can hardly blame Palin for using a phrase “death tax” that has been utilized since the 90s. You think she made this up?
I may disagree with Palin on the aircraft cutbacks simply because I’ve read enough on both sides to know they may be more obsolete for anticipated future conflicts. However if they are retiring current models without building the more advanced models as replacements, it is a downright dumb move. So I hold my judgment until I am in possession of more facts. A change in aircraft and vessel types more adapted for future conflicts is a good idea. i.e. the Navy focusing on the VT Group and the OCPV’s… high speed, shallow water craft. However depleting the inventory without replacing it is simply not a wise option.
I will also take issue with her general point about “government intervention” being the major factor in the crisis. Most folks put a HUGE chunk of blame squarely on Wall Street, and specifically mention the effectively unregulated markets in which credit default swaps and other derivatives were traded.
You are thinking too simplistically, and confuse “intervention” and “regulation”. There are underlying causes in Congressional regulation, overregulation, the Feds interest rates, and the Congressional push for EZ lending … all of the above, not one. Over regulation is the expansion of the CRA requirements to any banks who entertained mergers.
Regulation has a couple of avenues of blame… the refusal to reign in the GSEs and the foolish move of higher Congressional threshholds for GSE leveraging. The securitization, which you call the credit swaps, isn’t bad in itself… unless, of course, you were Congress… helping to create risky securities to package. Being able to mass distribute quality cookies is a fantastic idea that has worked for decades. However when you sanction the manufacture of toxic cookies with arsenic, mass distribution becomes foolhardy. Thus the higher GSE leveraging, EZ money and lowering of loan standards for the GSEs became “arsenic” that was passed on thru a distribution system that wasn’t flawed in itself… but by the product Congress allowed to proliferate.
Regulation also is a problem because Congress had the ability to reign the GSEs in with oversight… and deliberately chose to ignore as “there is no problem with Fannie/Freddie”. In this instance, you might want to use your blanket phrase, “under regulation”. It was not, however, for the lack of the power to do so… just the will.
Government intervention can encompass all the above.. meaning it intercedes unwisely. Either by not regulating and using oversight that exists, or creating the legislative environment that allows for the manufacture of arsenic cookies. I understand perfectly what Palin was saying. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons and not fall back on a cliche of “under regulation”… since that is not even remotely accurate in the big picture.
As far as a full transcript goes… why? So you can nit pick it to death? Frankly, Wes… never met a politician with whom I agreed 100% on everything they say. I’m quite sure there are things in there that I can argue contrary to Palin’s belief.
But I can say this… I have met a politician with whom I *disagree* 100% of the time. And that bozo is sitting in the Oval Office. So given my druthers of a Palin or Obama presidency? I’ll take the former. But then again, if Goofy were running against Obama, he’d get my vote.
wesmorgan1
14 years ago
Wes, you can hardly blame Palin for using a phrase “death tax” that has been utilized since the 90s. You think she made this up?
No, not at all. I fail to see the relevance of the estate tax (which hits less than 1% of the estates in the US each year, and only then if it’s a multi-million dollar estate) to the global financial crisis, or even the recovery from the same.
Again, it isn’t so much the positions (which we can always discuss) as it is the foreign-soil delivery. Go back and read my original comment; if we’re going to bash one side (say, private citizen Ramsey Clark) for doing it, we can’t applaud the other (say, private citizen Sarah Palin) for doing the same.
wesmorgan1
14 years ago
URI asked:
Wesmorgan1: Could you in a nutshell tell me what ideas do you support that comes from B.O? Let’s name 5.
Well, in no particular order of importance:
1) Further regulation of the derivatives industry. When people as ideologically disparate as Warren Buffett and Ben Stein agree that these are “financial weapons of mass destruction,” I think that we need to keep a close eye on them, and we’ve seen that the industry won’t regulate itself.
2) Public option health insurance in competition with the private sector. I know that is not a popular position in this forum, so I’ll suggest that we just leave it at “agree to disagree.”
3) Re-engagement with the UN. Sure, it has its share of clowns, but it is also an avenue toward international support for one’s initiatives, as we saw during the first Gulf War. I also think that our interaction with the UN does not need to be an all-or-nothing thing. We can participate in those UN activities of our choosing, and we can walk out on activities of which we want no part (e.g. Gadhafi’s and Ahmedinejad’s speeches).
4) Further regulation of the banking industry in general. Specifically, I would support a return to the barriers erected by Glass-Steagall but removed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
5) Reform of the PATRIOT Act. I think that several of its provisions are appropriate for terrorism investgiations, but not for other criminal investigations; I also think that several of its provisions should be subject to judicial review as a check on Executive power.
It’s not hard to see why the left is sooooo freaking afraid of this lady!
Sarge
What a great speech! I can see why some of the Obots (2) walked out saying it was “awful” while others were proclaiming her to be “brilliant”.
I knew when she resigned the Governor’s office she was doing the right thing by taking herself out of the bulls eye, under their radar. She’s showing us that she will be in charge of her message. I love that she chose a venue which traditionally does not allow the media input. She has to keep them at bay while she builds…interestingly enough, while 0zer0 crumbles. They’ve shown that their only agenda with regard to her future is to bring her down.
Go Sarah!
i just pray for sarah and her family. if sarah is on the ticket i will vote for her.
i pray for our GOD to intervene in this horrible administration!
also, remember that obama is half white and half kenyan or muslim or something, but not american black.
Is Henry Kissinger helping her with his contacts in Asia? If so, it is Kissinger vs. Soros?
Palin just told the Asian markets that they may never get their money back from the Obama administration.
Gutsy gal, lots there to think about in the short version, wish we could have heard the entire 90 minute speech, instead we get Khadafi. Wow, standing in Hong Kong taking China to task and praises our country, Obama stands in New York and attacks…America. Contrast noted and doesn’t she have impecible timing, what a weapon her Facebook page has become, what’s the score now?
Missy: Currently, as of now there are 897,706 supporters of Sarah Palin and growing!
@URI:
Once in awhile I check in at Conservatives4Palin and get the scoop. I was thinking of her critique of healthcare and other issues she brings up in Facebook to take on current Obama policies. Sends them scrambling.
She is about to get another one in a few minutes.
She is starting to refine her image the way she wants and not the way the limp wristed McCain handlers wanted her to be. Next stop the White House.
It should be noted that Palin’s excerpt is just that – an excerpt. Here’s what she didn’t put on her Facebook page, according to NBC Los Angeles, citing the WSJ. The funny thing is that the WSJ rewrote their article of yesterday, removing the Palin quotes in which she attacked Obama for “utopian sounding” campaign promises, blamed the financial crisis on the Fed’s low-interest policy, and pushed for elimination of the capital gains and estate taxes. However, the rewritten WSJ article does point out that Palin specifically told her Asian audience (in their words) “that President Barack Obama had weakened American influence in Asia.” It also points out that she specifically criticized the recent decision to stop purchasing the F-22 Raptor.
Why wouldn’t she quote the excerpts where she openly criticized the current Administration?
It’s simple. She went to Hong Kong (that’s part of Communist China now, remember), brought domestic policy arguments with her, and specifically criticized a sitting President’s foreign policy from foreign soil. She knows (or figured out after the fact) that that’s not kosher.
We heard lots of criticism when then-candidate Obama spoke abroad, and he didn’t say anything as directly confrontational as this. Will we hear that same “water’s edge” criticism now?
Oh, and I thought that this, from breitbart.com, was really interesting:
It’s one thing to take only pre-submitted questions (which she did), but “I have to change my speech if reporters are present?”
It means the speech would have to be shortened, to make time for the reporters asking her if she’s has a paternity test done on Trig yet, or when she’ll apologize for committing crimes against wolves and fish.
Obama goes abroad and criticizes the entire history of America ALONG with the (then) sitting president, WHILE HE WAS A CANDIDATE.
If you’ll notice, Palin is not a candidate for anything, nor is she a government official.
Other than whining about what was in a bloody facebook page, was there anything in her speech that was inaccurate? Must not be, because you haven’t mentioned any in now two posts. Or maybe it’s just personal for you…
I would like to run some tests on you, to determine the level of mind-reading you possess. I think I could win a Nobel.
Wesmorgan:
You have not read my blogg…The only thing that is sacred to Asians is money..not communism or Budha but money. The 700 Billion dollars of Obama’s stimulus money was loaned from the Chinese…and they won’t get that money back and you and I will never see that money either because it has been stolen under our noses. That was the message tha Sarah Palin delivered to them yesterday..Do business with the Conservative America and get your money back or do business with the marxist regime of Obama and say Adios to your mula…
PS: It helps to read the speech.
PatVann, we’ve criticized even private citizens when they’ve gone abroad to take shots at the current government; Ramsey Clark comes to mind, for his fringe activities during the Bush Administration. Why shouldn’t a prominent (if currently inactive) politician not be subject to the same standard? Don’t get me wrong, Palin had some interesting things to say about global economics, but getting into specifics of domestic political argument on foreign soil would seem a Bad Thing, regardless of one’s position on the left/right axis.
Uri, I’d seriously love to read the speech – where may I find it in its entirety?
@wesmorgan1: Go to Facebook and login and you can read the speech without becaming a supporter of Sarah Palin. However, I have noticed that since 9:30 Am today her supporters have grown by 243!. The speech must have something to do with it. It is now 897,949!
I disagree with you that Mrs. Palin should be polite or any conservative when dealing with the Obama Administration. You fight them! Remember, you are dealing with Marxists and they are thugs. No level of civilty gets to them. This is war and we the conservative bloggers are going to win this one. If this is a new world for them, by in my book, I still like to fight thugs the old fashion way. Hit them were it hurst the most and put preassure.
PS: To get a better understanding of who you are dealing with/against also visit
@wesmorgan1: The big difference, as I see it, (I know, obviously stupid, racist…as well as a woman…for you so-called “progressive” misogynists) is Sarah Palin criticized an administration but pointedly gave praise to our country and culture. We get to speak out against administrative policies and political actions in America, at least for now. Insulting and tearing down the country, as Obama has, on foreign soil borders on…well you know, the “T” word. Have you ever heard any other foreign leader criticize the country he or she is hired/elected/installed to represent at home or abroad? 0zer0 is no Winston Churchill but the contrast between an American hater and a true British patriot is stark. Churchill loved his country and its people even when he wasn’t personally popular.
BTW, I didn’t hear that she called him derogatory names or called him a…gasp…Muslim President for Life as his friend from Libya did. Funny how all the Muslims recognize a brother.
@wesmorgan1: “criticized a sitting President’s foreign policy from foreign soil. She knows (or figured out after the fact) that that’s not kosher.
We heard lots of criticism when then-candidate Obama spoke abroad, and he didn’t say anything as directly confrontational as this. Will we hear that same “water’s edge” criticism now?”
Like every other tradition for civility and good citizenship Dems like Carter, Clinton and Obama shattered them long ago.
It’s soooo funny to hear you talk about them now. A little late I would say.
It reminds me of the guy who called in to Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday and said we shouldn’t criticize Obama because “we are a nation at war.” I laughed so hard!
Wes: Save your hypocrisy for your little lib friends who won’t remember the garbage that was thrown at Bush for eight years or won’t care about the contradictions so evident in your statement.
URI, you said, “To get a better understanding of who you are dealing with/against…” I’m not “dealing with” you or “against you.” We’re just talking. For the record, I don’t like everything Obama is doing (or has done), but that’s true (for me) of any politician; I certainly supported President Bush on several issues, too.
PatVann, you asked, “Other than whining about what was in a bloody facebook page, was there anything in her speech that was inaccurate?” Can we start with her notion that “government interference” alone was responsible for the financial crisis? I don’t know with certainty; they haven’t released a full transcript. What I was “whining about in a facebook page” was the excerpts Palin herself released. Now, it has been very interesting to see quotes emerging; the WSJ has rewritten their articles, removing certain quotes in favor of others, and Politico has additional quotes, in which she criticized the Administration for the C-17 and F-22 cuts AND misstated the status of DoD funding for next year. I’d like nothing better than a full transcript, instead of these dribs and drabs that keep surfacing.
Ann, you wrote, “The big difference, as I see it, (I know, obviously stupid, racist…as well as a woman…for you so-called “progressive” misogynists)…” The only thing I will say to that is that I don’t play those cards. Disagreement doesn’t mean that either of us is stupid. Criticizing Obama’s policies or actions doesn’t make one racist. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Look, Palin had some interesting things to say, and a good chunk of her speech (from what I’ve seen of it – Facebook only has excerpts) was appropriate commentary. I simply thought that going into foreign policy and national security issues (and, for that matter, domestic taxation issues) on foreign soil was a bit much. I fully expect most of the folks here to disagree with my view, but that doesn’t make me a socialist, and it doesn’t make you a fascist, and it makes none of us stupid or racist.
Mike wrote:
I, for one, didn’t throw “garbage” at Bush, even when I disagreed with his policies or positions. I don’t throw everyone here in some “rightist” bucket, and I’d appreciate not being thrown in some “leftie” bucket.
Wesmorgan
I can see that you are trying to be open minded in this, and I for one appreciate it. I too want to see the whole transcript, and I’m sure we will soon. I’ve been collecting the different excepts, and probably have 80% of it, but let’s wait for it all, and we can come back to particulars, if you like. I’m sure I can find things I disagree with as well, because there is NO politician that is 100%.
Insofar as the government action causing (etc….)
Put it this way, if we rolled back every law written, pertaining to how banks and investment-houses operate, back to the first Community Investment Act, and just after the S&L crisis, NONE of these problems would have occurred. The laws and protections put in place at that time were very good. Most of the deregulation happened under Clinton, in cahoots with the Repubs in Congress. Bush/McCain tried 17 times to roll these back, and got stymied by leaders in both party’s, but mostly Dems. Her word: “government” did not single out a particular party.
THAT is what Palin was referring to.
I had initially felt the cuts to those aircraft programs were stupid, but because I’ve seen no large outcry from the AirForce, I am willing to sit on the fence about it. I could make good cases for either side of the argument.
It tickles me so to watch liberal blood pressure rise.
Mine never rises, which I highly reccommend to all conservatives. It makes watching them become apoplectic so much more fun.
To keep your pressure down just remember:
You’re right and they’re, well…. not.
PS: Go Sarah!
Wesmorgan1: Could you in a nutshell tell me what ideas do you support that comes from B.O?
Let’s name 5.
I agree with Captain Zero over at Hotair. She may be the new leader for the free world. I don’t think anyone else can fill that role at this time especially after her speech in Hong Kong
Wes, you keep saying she was criticizing the Obama admin. What you evidently do not know is that the Fed low-interest policy she is criticizing (rightfully, as part of the “perfect storm” of events that lead to the housing crash) is the policy of Greenspan during Bush’s admin after 911. Between the easy money and low rates, it drove up housing appreciation to the toxic levels we live in now. How you tie that to the Obama admin is a stretch even the most minimally informed wouldn’t attempt.
Today both Bush’s and Obama’s Bernanke has still boxed himself into a corner… trapped into forever low rates without great repercussions to rock the economic world yet again. He’s eyeing the perfect moment to raise the rates needed to defray inflation, but knows the minute he does, he tanks the housing market again. I’m telling you right now… we are all sitting on the toxic mortgages of the next crash when the rates rise in the next couple of years…. or as soon as October when Bernanke stops buying the MBSs. Rock and hard place… bite the bullet on overleveraged housing for a few years and eat a few million more short sales and foreclosures, or suffer runaway inflation. Housing will be the sacrificial lamb… just as soon as they cushion it’s next fall a bit.
Criticizing Obama for “utopian sounding” campaign promises is also nothing earth shatteringly new to the Chinese… nor is it arguable as fact. All his promises are “utopian” fantasy. Hang, even the Chinese are economically more capitalist than Obama. Unlike the O’faithful, the Chinese are painfully aware of Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending, and Bernanke’s printing presses running 24/7/365 with fake US dollars. There’s no “spilling of beans” here.
And the cure does include elimination of capital gains and estate taxes.
So I suggest Palin merely shot straight about the current financial situation, and the US’s errors along the way for the past decade and a half.. and it’s reckless spending now. I’d say the Chinese have viewed the summer of unlikely activists attending tea parties, and the loud cry of dissent. No surprise there are American voices, adding to the those of the Chinese, dismayed at the pure abandonment of fiscal responsbility in the name of nanny welfare.
The world is waiting the hear the voice of one who hears from the Living God, the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit – the 3 in One God. But many have closed their minds to understanding and locked into repetitive mind-blinding mantras. Many have deadened their understanding to a God that can be One but 3. But as we are created in God’s image is this really so hard to fathom? Is not a Father, also a husband, and a son, all at the same time and all in the one person – 3 in 1? Is a son inferior to his father in person hood because he came from and after his father? Are they not each equal in their manhood though different in their ages and agendas?
As we are body, soul and spirit, so we reflect in our humanity the very nature of our Triune Creator God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
No wonder a mere woman in whom dwells this triune God, causes a crisis and triggers trembling across the nation, in those who oppose not just her politics but her God.
Sarah’s humanity, warts and all is available for all to see. Not so the President with his polished performance, ringing rhetoric and studied statesmanship (plus TelePrompter).
Yet despite Sarah Palin’s well publicized, criticized and exaggerated weaknesses, she remains the Democrats Public Enemy #1. Why so much ado about nothing? Reminds me a bit of the winsome Queen Mother who Hitler described as the most dangerous woman in all England. Why so much fear for a woman they despise and ridicule? Could it be they fear the greater reality of the Living God who lives within her, that they know, even though subconsciously, they are dealing with a power greater than them all?
As it’s recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:27-31 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
Could it be that the Obamocrats are now awaking to the fact that they backed the wrong horse? Forget about playing Carters ‘colour’ card, it’s the CONTENT OF HIS CHARACTER that is now being questioned. He’s still the same colour as when America first voted him in, but the facade is flaking and what’s being exposed is not what was being sold to the voting public. Sarah, while she may have changed tracks, is staying the course, and she’s still the same ‘horse’ and being a Republican – that would have to be the ‘Right’ horse – you can’t say ‘neigh’ to that!
GO GIRL!
GOD BLESS YOU SARAH!
AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
MataHarley wrote:
So, her recommendations for repeal of the capital gains and estate taxes (which, of course, she called the “death tax”) were all just par for the course? Her criticism of specific national defense decisions, like the C-17 and F-22 cutbacks, were “shooting straight about the current financial situation?” I will, respectfully, disagree.
I will also take issue with her general point about “government intervention” being the major factor in the crisis. Most folks put a HUGE chunk of blame squarely on Wall Street, and specifically mention the effectively unregulated markets in which credit default swaps and other derivatives were traded. Palin even contradicted herself (to some degree) later in her speech, when she said:
So, government intervention was the problem, but there are problems on Wall Street that must be corrected by government intervention, but those problems on Wall Street didn’t cause the crisis in any way, but we need regulation to ensure a level playing field? She endorses Friedman’s view after opening with “we don’t want more government action”? Can you see where I find that, well, unconvincing?
I don’t think it’s going to be productive to go any further in our discussion unless/until we get a full transcript. It’s ridiculous to try to discuss things based on different sets of quotes from different parts of the speech. It doesn’t help that the news outlets are revising their articles to add some quotes and remove others; for instance, the WSJ changed their entire article (and quote selection) to eliminate Palin’s specific complaints against the Obama administration. What’s the point of THAT? Let’s get a transcript.
Wes, you can hardly blame Palin for using a phrase “death tax” that has been utilized since the 90s. You think she made this up?
I may disagree with Palin on the aircraft cutbacks simply because I’ve read enough on both sides to know they may be more obsolete for anticipated future conflicts. However if they are retiring current models without building the more advanced models as replacements, it is a downright dumb move. So I hold my judgment until I am in possession of more facts. A change in aircraft and vessel types more adapted for future conflicts is a good idea. i.e. the Navy focusing on the VT Group and the OCPV’s… high speed, shallow water craft. However depleting the inventory without replacing it is simply not a wise option.
You are thinking too simplistically, and confuse “intervention” and “regulation”. There are underlying causes in Congressional regulation, overregulation, the Feds interest rates, and the Congressional push for EZ lending … all of the above, not one. Over regulation is the expansion of the CRA requirements to any banks who entertained mergers.
Regulation has a couple of avenues of blame… the refusal to reign in the GSEs and the foolish move of higher Congressional threshholds for GSE leveraging. The securitization, which you call the credit swaps, isn’t bad in itself… unless, of course, you were Congress… helping to create risky securities to package. Being able to mass distribute quality cookies is a fantastic idea that has worked for decades. However when you sanction the manufacture of toxic cookies with arsenic, mass distribution becomes foolhardy. Thus the higher GSE leveraging, EZ money and lowering of loan standards for the GSEs became “arsenic” that was passed on thru a distribution system that wasn’t flawed in itself… but by the product Congress allowed to proliferate.
Regulation also is a problem because Congress had the ability to reign the GSEs in with oversight… and deliberately chose to ignore as “there is no problem with Fannie/Freddie”. In this instance, you might want to use your blanket phrase, “under regulation”. It was not, however, for the lack of the power to do so… just the will.
Government intervention can encompass all the above.. meaning it intercedes unwisely. Either by not regulating and using oversight that exists, or creating the legislative environment that allows for the manufacture of arsenic cookies. I understand perfectly what Palin was saying. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons and not fall back on a cliche of “under regulation”… since that is not even remotely accurate in the big picture.
As far as a full transcript goes… why? So you can nit pick it to death? Frankly, Wes… never met a politician with whom I agreed 100% on everything they say. I’m quite sure there are things in there that I can argue contrary to Palin’s belief.
But I can say this… I have met a politician with whom I *disagree* 100% of the time. And that bozo is sitting in the Oval Office. So given my druthers of a Palin or Obama presidency? I’ll take the former. But then again, if Goofy were running against Obama, he’d get my vote.
No, not at all. I fail to see the relevance of the estate tax (which hits less than 1% of the estates in the US each year, and only then if it’s a multi-million dollar estate) to the global financial crisis, or even the recovery from the same.
Again, it isn’t so much the positions (which we can always discuss) as it is the foreign-soil delivery. Go back and read my original comment; if we’re going to bash one side (say, private citizen Ramsey Clark) for doing it, we can’t applaud the other (say, private citizen Sarah Palin) for doing the same.
URI asked:
Well, in no particular order of importance:
1) Further regulation of the derivatives industry. When people as ideologically disparate as Warren Buffett and Ben Stein agree that these are “financial weapons of mass destruction,” I think that we need to keep a close eye on them, and we’ve seen that the industry won’t regulate itself.
2) Public option health insurance in competition with the private sector. I know that is not a popular position in this forum, so I’ll suggest that we just leave it at “agree to disagree.”
3) Re-engagement with the UN. Sure, it has its share of clowns, but it is also an avenue toward international support for one’s initiatives, as we saw during the first Gulf War. I also think that our interaction with the UN does not need to be an all-or-nothing thing. We can participate in those UN activities of our choosing, and we can walk out on activities of which we want no part (e.g. Gadhafi’s and Ahmedinejad’s speeches).
4) Further regulation of the banking industry in general. Specifically, I would support a return to the barriers erected by Glass-Steagall but removed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
5) Reform of the PATRIOT Act. I think that several of its provisions are appropriate for terrorism investgiations, but not for other criminal investigations; I also think that several of its provisions should be subject to judicial review as a check on Executive power.