Say Anything Blog

I agree with you that polls 4 years out are crazy. If you go back 4 years ago and look at who the front runners on both sides you will see talk about people that you had forgotten were even in the running. I think alot needs to change before this is even on the table.

I would prefer to see neither Palin or Romney.  Especially Palin. If Republicans thing she is going to be the flag bearer for our party we are going to get completely destroyed by Obama unless he runs the country like Carter Jr.  Romney is just a democrat who decided to be a Republican because it was the in thing at the time.

Also, our candidate will most likely be a popular governor, Jindahl included, but if not Jindahl my bet would be the following will be the front runners:

Bobby Jindahl
Charlie Crist
Tim Pawlenty
Mark Sanford

I like Governor Palin.  She tells it like it is and will argue her point till you agree.

Gustave776

Zogby: Republicans Want Palin In 2012, General Public Wants Romney.

Ellinas: Both will be irrelevant in 2012.

I think I figured out why conservatives are so fixated on Carter. They think it keeps people from looking behind Carter and seeing Nixon, the only President corrupt enough to be forced to resign, a leader who presided over a series of deep recessions and inflation that destroyed our economy.

And a REPUBLICAN.

Sound familiar?

Nixon, the only President corrupt enough to be forced to resign

Dick in Nether Orifice,

Interesting point.  Clinton was impeached but didn’t have the common decency to resign. 

At least Nixon did the honorable thing after he was impeached.

Gman ( o)==:::

No Shoulder Shrugs.  A lie left unchallenged soon becomes the truth.

One Big Ass Mistake, America

Nixon wasn’t impeached, Einstein. He left before they could burn him. Clinton had the balls to stay and fight. Clinton’s popularity went UP after his failed impeachment, too.

However, several of the “House managers” of the impeachment went down in flames, losing their seats in the next election.

Good try on obfuscating that the only President to resign in disgrace was a REPUBLICAN. But then again, all republicans since Lincoln have been failures!

Clinton had the balls to stay and fight.

“You gotta fight!

For your right!

To Paaaaaartay!”

At least Nixon did the honorable thing after he was impeached.

Gman on November 28, 2008 at 05:24 pm

Making things up now? The coward resigned, and if his vice President didn’t pardon him, surely he would be a felon.

As much as a like Sarah, I don’t think she’d be a good candidate. The Obama campaign and its surrogates (especially those pulling down media paychecks) did a masterfull job of distorting her record and beliefs.

The McCain campaigns inept handling of Palin made things even worse.

As of right now the average American has been lead to believe that Palin is a stupid bimbo. I bet that at least 30 percent couldn’t tell Palin and Tina Fay apart.

I’d like to see her move on to congress or a cabinet position in a future Republican administration.

I don’t think the media will ever give her a fair shake. The media will fight tooth and nail to maintain the “dumb bimbo” image they worked so hare to create of her.

Governor Palin was perhaps the best and only choice in a year when no republican was going to win.  She at least brought a little life to the smouldering embers of defeat.

However, I predict she will not be a viable candidiate in ‘12 or even ‘16.  There are so many other better-qualified choices out there.

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

Are republicans really that stupid?  Palin?  C’mon.  She is nothing like Ron Paul.

JD

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Palin was the closet thing to a Republican on the Executive ticket.

She didn’t lose…. RINO’s lost.

...for great justice

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.” —Ann Coulter, P. 16

http://i44.tinypic.com/t89p3s.jpg[/IMG]”]

AMERICANS FOR TRUTH

NO PRIDE. LV

MASS RESISTANCE

THE PINK SWASTIKA

Rule #2 of Conservative orthydoxy: When republicans or conservatives lose or fail, they weren’t “real” conservatives.

Rule #1: Conservatives are the victims of a biased media when they lose. As if the media counts the ballots.

Rule #2 of Conservative orthydoxy: When republicans or conservatives lose or fail, they weren’t “real” conservatives.

Rule #1: Conservatives are the victims of a biased media when they lose. As if the media counts the ballots.

Dino on November 28, 2008 at 08:04 pm

Finaly something wise came out of your mouth.

We still have hopes for you, ellinas.

Conservatives are the victims of a biased media when they lose

And even when they win, unless you are stupid enough to dispute that even Evan Thomas said the good old MSM was good for giving dems a big bump (and now, the MSM is lamenting their lopsided coverage in Obama’s favor.Please). It’s unfortunate that you can’t grasp the concept of the media having the ability to spin news/opinion in favor of their preferred candidate. Next you’ll be trying to tell us that the MSM really doesn’t vote democrat around 80% (plus) of the time.

But, I find it hard to believe that even you are stupid enough to be bitching about someone playing the blame game. Let me see, a democrat loses and it’s because: (1) the voting machines were rigged (damn you, Diebold),(2) minorities and poor people were mugged by brown-shirts who wouldn’t let them vote (funny, no leftist stories of disenfranchisement this election), (3) votes were lost/stolen from democrat precincts,( 4) Racism,(5)  We were “Swiftboated.”

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Rule #2 of Conservative orthydoxy: When republicans or conservatives lose or fail, they weren’t “real” conservatives.

Kind of like when socialist utopias fail (nationalized health care in Canada, etc.) it’s just because “they weren’t doing it right.”

Regardless, I’ll explain this to you again: Republicans lost because Republicans grew the size of government.

Conservatives want to limit government not grow it.

Thus, the Republicans that lost weren’t conservatives.

Honestly, this isn’t rocket science.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Conservatives want to limit government not grow it.

Bush is not conservative.  McSame is not conservative.  What makes anyone believe Palin is conservative?

JD

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Honestly, this isn’t rocket science.

If it was, the Christians would call it rocket creation science.

Rugby, a real conservative is like a unicorn. A mythical creature that bestows a magical aura of Utopia on the community where it bestows its presence. Note the mythical part.

Bush is not conservative.  McSame is not conservative.

No arguments here.

What makes anyone believe Palin is conservative?

Limiting government in Alaska, maybe?  Something that brought her to an 80% approval rating?

By the way, I love it when you liberals whine about conservatives not really being conservatives.  As if you guys give a fig about individual liberty and limited government.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Were you really a Marine?

I can’t believe that.

Oh well, I suppose every organization has shitbirds.

Which Depot?

Or did you take the correspondence course?

...for great justice

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.” —Ann Coulter, P. 16

http://i44.tinypic.com/t89p3s.jpg[/IMG]”]

AMERICANS FOR TRUTH

NO PRIDE. LV

MASS RESISTANCE

THE PINK SWASTIKA

General public wants Romney over Palin?
Nice deceptive headline.
Romney leads Palin in that catagory by three tenths of one percent.
duh, I’d call that a tie.
Better check out the WHISPERS blog in US news& world,
the big wigs in the party are already preparing “Candidate school’
for her. Romney couldn’t even buy it last time, what makes you
think he even has a chance.
Ooooooh, SaraCuda!

By the way, I love it when you liberals whine about conservatives not really being conservatives.  As if you guys give a fig about individual liberty and limited government.
Rob on November 28, 2008 at 09:08 pm

We give many figs for individual liberty and limited government. But none for lip service.

Yeah, but her approval rating was from the same people who almost gave a Senate seat back to a convicted felon.

Alaska voters are not indicative of the greater population. Thank Goddess.

I see the born-agains want huckabee but the born-right-the-first-timers want a liberal.

We give many figs for individual liberty and limited government. But none for lip service.

Says the guy who thinks the government should mandate one free airline seat for fatties.

Give me a break, Ellinas.  You’re big government all the way.

I see the born-agains want huckabee but the born-right-the-first-timers want a liberal.

What’s with the anti-Christian bias, Dino?  And why are you directing it at me?

I’m an atheist.  Religion has nothing to do with my politics.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I see the born-agains want huckabee but the born-right-the-first-timers want a liberal.

Dino on November 28, 2008 at 09:32 pm

Dino. Nice one.

It was a joke. You lose the chuckle and vocal inflection with the internet…... 

Says the guy who thinks the government should mandate one free airline seat for fatties.
Give me a break, Ellinas.  You’re big government all the way.

Rob on November 28, 2008 at 09:35 pm

I do want limited government. But not your way.

It was a joke.

Dino on November 28, 2008 at 09:38 pm

Hell Dino. that’s no joke. If one is born right the first time, no need to be reborn. I think it will make a great slogan. Good job!

I do want limited government. But not your way.

There’s another way to limit government then actually decreasing the amount of power it has and the amount of money it spends?

You’re a clown.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Let me guess, the Dims are striving to keep on selecting Republican candidates to make it a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose proposition, like we were just faced with.

Rule number one: Don’t take advice from the enemy.

Rule number two: Look for which of your candidates the enemy hates the most.  They are very likely your very best choice.

Look at Romeny—(Massachusetts… Massachusetts, are you freekin kidding me? )

The Huckster, so named because, well, he wasn’t Conservative in any manner, shape or form (aside from espousing a liberal form of religion—huhn???) and served as stalking horse to ensure Romney didn’t get the religious vote. 

McCain, yeah, he sold old way back and spent more of his time hobnobbing with Leftards at the expense of Conservatives, than he did helping our side.  And don’t get me started on his ongoing and continuing treason vis-a-vis Mexico (bring ‘em ALL in)

Rudi—in what way was he Conservative?

How about Duncan Hunter?

And Tancredo, even if he was not well-spoken, was right on the issues.

Palin, oh yeah.  Getting much warmer.

...for great justice

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.” —Ann Coulter, P. 16

http://i44.tinypic.com/t89p3s.jpg[/IMG]”]

AMERICANS FOR TRUTH

NO PRIDE. LV

MASS RESISTANCE

THE PINK SWASTIKA

There’s another way to limit government then actually decreasing the amount of power it has and the amount of money it spends?
You’re a clown.

Rob on November 28, 2008 at 09:47 pm

Yes. A government from the people, by the people, and for the people.
Not a government run by lobbyists, for the ones that can afford it.

I will not call you names, even though the clown epithet fits you in this instance.

Not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination…

JD

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination…

Says the Al Franken supporter.

Yes. A government from the people, by the people, and for the people.
Not a government run by lobbyists, for the ones that can afford it.

I don’t want a government run by lobbyists either, but your suggestion that is run only for those who can afford it suggests that the government exists to give us things.

It doesn’t, but your suggestion that it does proves that you’re big-government through and through.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Ron Paul supporter, thank you very much.

JD

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

You said you were an Al Franken supporter in another thread.

You can’t be both, unless you’re a confused and have no idea what you’re talking about.  Which I’m pretty sure is the case.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

By the way, I love it when you liberals whine about conservatives not really being conservatives.  As if you guys give a fig about individual liberty and limited government.
Rob on November 28, 2008 at 09:08 pm

We give many figs for individual liberty and limited government. But none for lip service.

Ellinus just admitted to being a lioberal .

“some days it is not worth the effort to chew through the restraints”

Bullshit, Rob. I am not a Franken supporter.  He is a democrat.  Democrats are nothing but republicans in disguise.  They both are corporate supporters of the illegal, immoral, unjustified, and unconstitutional occupation of Iraq.

JD

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There’s another way to limit government then actually decreasing the amount of power it has and the amount of money it spends?—Rob

US military spending is more than the rest of the world combined. It is simply wealth redistribution from taxpayers to a bloated, inefficient sector of the economy.

The CIA and FBI are bloated as well, too many bureaucrats, too inefficient. (Though admittedly, they may have been able to help prevent 9/11 if they had given their security memos to someone who could read.)

I have yet to see Rob (or pretty much anyone who calls themselves a conservative) advocate slashing the funding to these.

Why? Because “conservative” is really a euphemism for police-state advocate.

You pretend to advocate limited govt but of course you only want to eliminate money being spent making the US a better place to live for the majority of your countrymen (like spending on universal healthcare, or social welfare, or job protection/creation).

Real patriots are liberals.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

US military spending is more than the rest of the world combined. It is simply wealth redistribution from taxpayers to a bloated, inefficient sector of the economy.

Military spending is a fraction of entitlement spending.

I have yet to see Rob (or pretty much anyone who calls themselves a conservative) advocate slashing the funding to these.

Why? Because “conservative” is really a euphemism for police-state advocate.

Conservatives recognize that national security is one of the few valid roles for government.  Conservatives recognize that entitlements, which create government dependency among the citizenry, are not.

Now, you can rail against me for being ok with military spending and you can claim that I’m not really for limited government, but I’m going to laugh at you because you support putting the government in charge of our health care.  In charge of our economy.  In charge of, well, pretty much anything.

My political positions are based on logic and reason.  Yours are based on emotion, and a childish way of seeing the world.

Maybe one day you’ll grow up.  Get some responsibility.  Then maybe you’ll get it.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Bullshit, Rob. I am not a Franken supporter.

From your comment the other day:

Could be.  I’m from North Dakota, not Minnesota.  However, I agree with Al Franken.  And Ron Paul.  And Ralph Nader.

I don’t care if you agree with me or not, but you should at least be honest.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rule #2 of Conservative orthydoxy: When republicans or conservatives lose or fail, they weren’t “real” conservatives.

Cause it doesn’t matter whether they ARE conservative or not. Only that Dino CONSIDERS them conservative.

McCain has a history of being called a RINO, long before his nod, as do Romney, Huckabee, and Guilliani.

But hell, don’t let the facts stand in your way here. They never had before.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

Bullshit, Rob. I am not a Franken supporter.  He is a democrat.  Democrats are nothing but republicans in disguise.  They both are corporate supporters of the illegal, immoral, unjustified, and unconstitutional occupation of Iraq.

Yea, I’m going to shoot that shit down.

Franken has been a consistant critic of the Iraq war, even when it was cool among liberals.

But hell, why lood at his record. He’s got a D behind his name, which apparently the same as having an R behind your name, even though both parties disagree on most everything.

Why the hell should a moron like you get to vote?

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

My political positions are based on logic and reason.—Rob

Your understanding of economic issues is limited, you don’t even understand supply and demand let alone why the financial sector needs tight regulation to ensure it serves the economy. (Recent failings of inadequate regulation include the current crisis, the dot com collapse, the Asian Financial Crisis, the 1987 crash, S&L Crisis, and Japan’s economic failure throughout the 90’s.)

You assume that because I don’t subscribe to your faith in free markets and limited govt (the combination of the two especially) that I must be too childish to understand. It’s quite funny really, you’re like a retarded child telling Einstein that he is too stupid to understand physics.

What you preach has been tried in Indonesia (under Suharto) and Chile (under Pinochet). Turns out that state violence had to be used against those who thought the govt. should be acting for them, not against them.

And single payer health care, like that which Germany has, is not govt. control. The hospitals and clinics are privately owned, the average waiting times for surgery are the shortest in the world (yes, even in the US there are delays for certain medical procedures), everyone is covered, and the average cost per citizen for it is only 2/3 of the US.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

I don’t want a government run by lobbyists either, but your suggestion that is run only for those who can afford it suggests that the government exists to give us things.

It doesn’t, but your suggestion that it does proves that you’re big-government through and through.

Rob on November 28, 2008 at 10:10 pm

What I meant by, “Not a government run by lobbyists, for the ones that can afford it.” is this:the moneyed interests that can lobby the Government for tons of tax loopholes, cash give aways and other assorted goodies.

Sorry I was not clear enough. Should have written: “Not a government run by lobbyists, for the benefit of the ones ones that can afford the lobbying.

Your understanding of economic issues is limited, you don’t even understand supply and demand let alone why the financial sector needs tight regulation to ensure it serves the economy. (Recent failings of inadequate regulation include the current crisis, the dot com collapse, the Asian Financial Crisis, the 1987 crash, S&L Crisis, and Japan’s economic failure throughout the 90’s.)

Try again.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

Kenny, your response didn’t critique any particular point, or offer an alternative argument? What’s the matter? Scared to commit your silly theories to a public forum?

Well, here’s the basis for my POV:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.—Adam Smith
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.—Adam Smith

Clearly the financial sector, due to its reckless and self-interested actions, has violated its purpose according to quote two, hence the need for increased regulation.

Care to elaborate what you meant by “try again” girly-man?

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

Lets measure Obamas failures in four years and see where we are. Obama voters have all of a sudden become complacent and accepting of “personal sacrifice”. Under Bush they were all suffering, now they are patriots. LOL.

It wasn’t all that great under Clinton and certainly not under Carter. Billions of dollars were lost in the technology bubble and corporate corruption was at an all time high under Clinton. We had inflation, terrorist attacks and scandal. As for Carter, 17% unemployment, a 21% prime rate, gas shortages and a long list of political failures were common place.

Obama will have to be a completely different type of Democrat to succeed. Considering the lack of originality of the Democrat party in general and his propensity to be influenced by Marxist theorem, I won’t hold my breath for any miracles coming from this guy.

This will be the perfect opportunity for Jihadist whack-jobs to strike against our national interests. What a gift he is. An American President who is vocally against his military both politically and financially. Send in the lawyers, rainbows and unicorns.

Mickey has lost his mind as most cons do.

When Carter left office unemployment was 7%. By 1982, two years into Reagan’s first term it was nearly 12%.

Who ruled before Carter? Oh yeah, NIXON, a republican and the only President to be forced to resign. And what was the economy like under Nixon? We had 2 recessions during his corruption-filled reign, the one in 74 was among the worst in US history. We had the first energy shocks and gas lines in 73, 3 years before Carter. Inflation under Nixon was enormous. Like Obama, Carter inherited a huge republican mess.

You people think that if you yammer about Carter that everyone will forget what a failure and criminal Nixon was. WHich means he was a typical republican.  LOL

You go Dino!