Large Scale Central

Sarah Palin

General Discussion
#181

I’ve never insisted anyone was a communist, and the last I looked pope isn’t running for president, either. And like any other religious leader I respect their opinions.

Mike, you’ve never given me any evidence that Palin was a secessionist either, despite your claims to the contrary and outdated information. I had to go look myself. I think if you looked hard enough you can find the same information on Obama’s past that I can find. I’m just an amateur at this. And I don’t have a bit of trouble finding out these things.

And if the media were doing their jobs, I wouldn’t have to do it.

Never could figger out why they’re called 'Mainstream"…must be wishful thinkin on their part…

#182

Ken, I gave you lots of evidence that Palin was a secessionist–including the claims made by three members of the party. They have since retracted those claims, and erased the record of them from the web. That makes the evidence suspect. Evidence is ALWAYS suspect, never perfect.

I pointed out that Palin’s husband, the person closest to her, the father of her children, WAS a member of a Party which as recently as last year was calling US troops an “occupying army.”

I pointed out that she adopted the parties phrase “alaska first,”–the party’s slogan–on her monthly newsletters. I pointed out that she gave a speech praising the party at its annual convention. I pointed out that she wore an Alaska pin, not a flag pin, at her acceptance speech.

None of these things prove she is a secessionist. They do tend in a consistent direction though: Palin is personally friendly with and has courted the political favor of people who believe that Alaska should rid itself of the “occupying army” of US troops. She uses phrases an symbols designed to appeal to Alaska secessionists–people who call American troops an “occupying army.”

That seems like cause for concern to me: I doubt her loyalty to the United States, frankly. It seems like a legitimate concern and I would like to see her address this question, as Obama addressed the Rev. Wright question. People were right to call Obama to address the question of Rev. Wright. It’s similarly reasonable to expect some answers from Palin on the secessionist thing

#183

All I’m asking for Mike is that you delve into Obama’s past and show the same concern and enthusiasm about HIS loyalty and HIS associations and who HE courts political favor from that you seem to be so obessesed with in Palin’s case. Like I also said earlier, I think you’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

#184

mike omalley said:
Ken, I gave you lots of evidence that Palin was a secessionist–including the claims made by three members of the party. They have since retracted those claims, and erased the record of them from the web. That makes the evidence suspect. Evidence is ALWAYS suspect, never perfect. I pointed out that Palin’s husband, the person closest to her, the father of her children, WAS a member of a Party which as recently as last year was calling US troops an “occupying army.” I pointed out that she adopted the parties phrase “alaska first,”–the party’s slogan–on her monthly newsletters. I pointed out that she gave a speech praising the party at its annual convention. I pointed out that she wore an Alaska pin, not a flag pin, at her acceptance speech. None of these things prove she is a secessionist. They do tend in a consistent direction though: Palin is personally friendly with and has courted the political favor of people who believe that Alaska should rid itself of the “occupying army” of US troops. She uses phrases an symbols designed to appeal to Alaska secessionists–people who call American troops an “occupying army.” That seems like cause for concern to me: I doubt her loyalty to the United States, frankly. It seems like a legitimate concern and I would like to see her address this question, as Obama addressed the Rev. Wright question. People were right to call Obama to address the question of Rev. Wright. It’s similarly reasonable to expect some answers from Palin on the secessionist thing

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj307/healydj/MountainoutofMolehill.jpg)

#185

I disagree, obviously–what I see is a mountain, and Palin could easily make it into a molehill with a short explanation of where she stands vis a vis secession and the AIP.

If this is a molehill, why are Reverend Wright’s sermons not also a molehill? Rev. Wright is constantly invoked by posters here as a critique of Obama. As I said, I think it was right that Obama be called to account on Rev. Wright, and in my opinion he answered well. Why is it unreasonable to expect the same of Palin?

I’m not sure what part of Obama’s past you want me to investigate. I’ve read one of his books, I looked at the Rezko thing and could find no solid evidence of wrongdoing, I looked at Rev. Wright and while I think Rev. Wright is a Jackass, he’s not calling for secession, and just as several people pointed out that Indians have a right to be pissed, so black Americans have some historical grounds for being angry at the US. Obama freely admits he took drugs as a young man. His ties to Ayers are very slight, his community organizing seems typical of some kinds of liberal politics but I can’t see any thing hidden in it.

Obama has been in the national eye for a long time now, intensely investigated by the right, There are several books–see jerome Corsi–which have gone into his background in great detail. Palin is brand new on the national scene, and the public has a right to some answers

#186

I have more serious concerns about a silver-tongued political hack that emerges from a corrupt Chicago political machine than any mayor of a small town in Alaska. But that’s just me…

As one right wing pundit puts it:

James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal notes that while Democrats are complaining about putting “the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” Obama, the community organizer, will be “no heartbeats away.” And Taranto still isn’t sure what a “community organizer” does. He asks, “Are we supposed to cast our eyes on the slums of Chicago, behold how well organized they are, and exclaim in wonder, ‘Wow, Barack Obama did that!’?”

After receiving an email from David Plouffe of the Obama campaign explaining, “Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies,” Taranto thinks he’s finally got the answer. “[C]ommunity organizing consists of helping elect Barack Obama president!” He concludes, “The community Barack Obama has organized is, in Plouffe’s own telling, the community of those who admire Barack Obama. He is mayor of Obamaville and aspires to be president of Barackistan.”

#187

But Ken, while I give you facts about Palin, with my conclusions/opinions drawn from those facts, you’re just giving me more opinions. I’m not at all surprised that the Wall Street Journal opposes Obama, but there’s not a single fact in what you posted–just Taranto’s opinions.

#188

I think Mike has a point. The evidence is not concrete, but the fact the evidence is disappearing bothers me. The fact that the party is only 3% of the people does not mean it can not be dangerous.
I’m not ready to condemn the women on the facts so far, but it does make me uncomfortable.
As for Obama and Rezko, also makes me uncomfortable.
Then there is the matter of John McCain, Charles Keating and the Keating five. Also makes me uncomfortable.
Mountains out of mole hills? Maybe. Big problems are easy to spot. It is the little things that sneak up on you and bite you in the ass.
Ralph

#189
Ken Brunt said:
My ignorance thanks you, Mr Foley and for the little history lesson.
Dear Mr Brunt - I apologise for my 'history lesson' and I have therefore deleted it. It was not meant to hit a sarcastic note, but was instead a small attempt to lighten up a thread which is becoming not only pretty heated, but is leading, in my view, down the road to nowhere.

Over there you guys will vote for whomsoever you please, but the attempts by a couple of posters to find dirt anywhere it can be scraped off the floor are making this once sensible topic into a diatribe of unpleasantness.

It is my view, which of course counts for nothing, that Mrs Palin has more guts and good old-fashioned American-ness in her ear-wax than Mr Obama has in his entire and dubious family, and that with him as President you will endure four years of unremitting home policy disasters that might just lead to another civil war, or at least secession by a number of states.

And that, Sir, is the very least of your worries.

What seems to have escaped you all is that whoever you vote for will not only have a deep and lasting effect on the future history of the USA, but will affect every single one of us on the planet - the parochial view simply doesn’t have any meaning any more.

I just hope you vote for the right person, and not the wrong one.

I’m out of this thread.

tac

#190

Rant on…

mike said:
I'm not sure what part of Obama's past you want me to investigate. I've read one of his books, I looked at the Rezko thing and could find no solid evidence of wrongdoing, I looked at Rev. Wright and while I think Rev. Wright is a Jackass, he's not calling for secession, and just as several people pointed out that Indians have a right to be pissed, so black Americans have some historical grounds for being angry at the US. Obama freely admits he took drugs as a young man. His ties to Ayers are very slight, his community organizing seems typical of some kinds of liberal politics but I can't see any thing hidden in it.
As Tom Foley, former Democratic Speaker of the House once said, "The very fact that there is no evidence of wrongdoing just means that we need an independent prosecutor to find the evidence." :P Don't you just love this?
Ralph said:
Then there is the matter of John McCain, Charles Keating and the Keating five. Also makes me uncomfortable.
Ralph, Bob Bennett, the leading Democratic lawyer, who was assigned by the Dems, then in power, to investigate the Keating 5, said that McCain was innocent of any wrongdoing, and that the matter regarding McCain should be dropped. He was not so forgiving of the Democrat Senators involved. That should give you some comfort.

Rant off

Shields up!

#191

oops, double post deleted…:wink:

#192
Terry A de C Foley said:
Ken Brunt said:
My ignorance thanks you, Mr Foley and for the little history lesson.
Dear Mr Brunt - I apologise for my 'history lesson' and I have therefore deleted it. It was not meant to hit a sarcastic note, but was instead a small attempt to lighten up a thread which is becoming not only pretty heated, but is leading, in my view, down the road to nowhere.

Over there you guys will vote for whomsoever you please, but the attempts by a couple of posters to find dirt anywhere it can be scraped off the floor are making this once sensible topic into a diatribe of unpleasantness.

It is my view, which of course counts for nothing, that Mrs Palin has more guts and good old-fashioned American-ness in her ear-wax than Mr Obama has in his entire and dubious family, and that with him as President you will endure four years of unremitting home policy disasters that might just lead to another civil war, or at least secession by a number of states.

And that, Sir, is the very least of your worries.

What seems to have escaped you all is that whoever you vote for will not only have a deep and lasting effect on the future history of the USA, but will affect every single one of us on the planet - the parochial view simply doesn’t have any meaning any more.

I just hope you vote for the right person, and not the wrong one.

I’m out of this thread.

tac


I guess my attempt at humor failed, too. Mine was not meant as sarcasm either. And I did enjoy the history…:wink:

I do agree whole heartedly with your asessment…

#193

You want facts, Mike?
I’ve shown you 2 separate instances where any involvement by Palin in the AIP was repudiated as recently as 2 days ago. She was also a registered Republican at the time of the accusations she joined the AIP. In some circles that definitely makes her suspect.

Obama’s involvement with ACORN, an organization currently under investigation in 3 states for various criminal activities, including fraud, drug offenses and forgery and including the Obama campaign admitting failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called “Citizen Services, Inc.” for “advance work.”

Obama’s own words of his use of marijuana and cocaine and the deceptions he used to fool his mother.

His association and dealings with “Tony” Rezko who, at the time of Obama’s housing purchase, was under indictment for fraud. The fact that he now calls it boneheaded shows a very poor lack of judgment on his part. Personally, I wouldn’t buy a candy bar off someone under indictment for fraud. And if Obama didn’t know about the indictment, he was the only person in Chicago or Illinois that didn’t know it.

As for his dealings with William Ayers and Bernadine Doerhm, I don’t care if he saw the guy for 10 minutes or 1 hour. he launched his Senate campaign from the guys home. Just because Obama was 7 years old when Ayers was blowing up Federal buildings doesn’t excuse his dealings with him. I wasn’t born when Hitler was killing people, but I certainly knew who he was and what he did by the time I reached high school. Just the fact that the Obama organization is using heavy handed tactics or any tactics at all to keep anyone from seeing the records of his involvement with Ayers concerns me.

Those aren’t opinions Mike, those are facts. A search by anyone of the Chicago newspapers will reveal them.

And I haven’t even gotten the the Reverend Jeremiah Wright yet.

So for 20 years Obama sat in this church and then, all of a sudden Obama is in the spotlight and running for president old Jeremiah says “Goddamn America”? Just that one time? Or is it just that one time that got recorded?

And one of his member’s is running for president, and old Jerry gets the spotlight and acts like a pompous ass and is arrogant and antagonistic? Just that one time he acts that way?

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called “black liberation theology” and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Give me a break…If my minister even thought of saying Goddamn America in whatever context, I’d be long gone from that congregation. And that is a fact!

And your worried about who Sarah Palin is courting votes from?

#194
Steve Featherkile said:
Ralph said:
Then there is the matter of John McCain, Charles Keating and the Keating five. Also makes me uncomfortable.
Ralph, Bob Bennett, the leading Democratic lawyer, who was assigned by the Dems, then in power, to investigate the Keating 5, said that McCain was innocent of any wrongdoing, and that the matter regarding McCain should be dropped. He was not so forgiving of the Democrat Senators involved. That should give you some comfort.

Shields up!


Steve,
I believe the report concluded he was guilty of using bad judgment.
Obviously they could not prove any wrong doing on Mr. McCain’s part.
But we are judged by the company we keep. So I have to consider Mr. McCain’s past associations, as well as Mr. Obama’s and those of the Vice Presidential candidates.
Ralph

#195

And to answer your other question Mike. No I haven’t read Jerome Corsi’s book yet. Have you read Barak Hussein Obama’s “Mein Kampf…er scuse me, Dream’s of my Father” yet?

Interesting reading…:wink:

#196

Ken I did some brief research of my own and I cannot figure out what is going on with the Acorn thing. Apparently some right wing opponents of Obama have accused the Obama campaign of sending money to an organization which then paid it to ACORN. Apparently lots of people dislike ACORN. That’s fine. I dislike the Reverend Dobson. That doesn’t make him criminal. I cannot follow the arguments about ACORN. I can’t figure out what ACORN is or does or what the connection to drug dealing is. I guess that’s my failing. It’s not a crime to be liberal. it’s not a crime to be radical. It is, I think, a crime to advocate secession

I’m not sure why you keep bringing up Obama’s admitted past drug use–he admitted it, there’s no scandal. Bush, you may recall, admitted to both cocaine use and alcoholism.

As to Reverend Wright, well, I’ve said this several times before and I’ll say it again, Obama has twice spoken on Wright and he has repudiated him. Do you think that’s enough? Maybe not–so be it! he said his piece on the subject. He’s not going to persuade you. we know that.

I’m just waiting for Sarah Palin’s explanation of her and her husband’s involvement in a secessionist organization–that’s all. I want some explanation. Is there something wrong with asking the question?

Obama has made his public statement on this. It was obviously not satisfactory to you, which of course is your choice. I just want some explanation from Palin of why Americans should accept, as their vice president, someone who seems sympathetic to Alaskan secession.

I know this will irritate you, but yes I read “dreams of my father” and I thought it was smart an thoughtful and surprisingly even handed. It was an interesting look at the problem of identity by a mixed race guy who has seen American from several sides. Does tat make him a good president? No, not in and of itself. I have my doubts abut Obama, but as usual we only have two choices. You could try reading it. Or you could just weirdly try comparing it to Hitler. I can promise you, if you read it you’ll see thst the comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

#197

As someone mentioned earlier, you are judged by the company you keep. I wrote off Barak Hussein Obama a long time ago.

As for Palin, I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of any sympathy to Alaskan secession. I see it as a dead issue, at the most a non-issue.

After 8 pages, I think you know where I stand on the matter.

#198
Ken Brunt said:
As someone mentioned earlier, you are judged by the company you keep. I wrote off Barak Hussein Obama a long time ago.

As for Palin, I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of any sympathy to Alaskan secession. I see it as a dead issue, at the most a non-issue.


Well that’s remarkable. She “kept company”–in the sense of being married to, sleeping with, raising children with–a guy who was a member of the AIP. Yet you see no evidence?

#199

My wife’s political affiliations have no bearing on who I vote for or what I believe in.

#200
Ken Brunt said:
My wife's political affiliations have no bearing on who I vote for or what I believe in.
Oh, ok--so one should NOT be judged by the company one keeps then.