Where Have I Seen Sarah Palin Before?

[hrdman2luv]

Originally Posted by nohil-billy

OK, Sarah Palin said that she would like to see Roe vs Wade overturned and that it be turned over to the states. H2L, GO!!

Oh well, that makes all the difference. Since she said that, then maybe I should just over look the fact that she lied and flip flopped about the bridge to no where. And over look the fact that she hasn't the experience to be the president. And that McCain only picked her because she was a woman. Funny, how you don't hear much about their differences on many issues.

Like I stated before, Obama and McCain agree on as many or more issues that McCain and Palin.

Here we go again. Taking up for the GOP just because they are the GOP.....Which, I might ad, is exactly how we got George Bush.

[nohil-billy]

What do you know about Sarah Palin and the bridge to nowhere?

Do strong women scare you H2O???

[hrdman2luv]

Originally Posted by nohil-billy

What do you know about Sarah Palin and the bridge to nowhere?

Do strong women scare you H2O???

No. But women who lie to make themselves look better do? She didn't stop the bridge. Congress stopped it. And she only stopped supporting it when the general public got wind of it. I don't care if she supports it or not. But to flip flop on it, and then lie about it is something that should scare you too.

[nohil-billy]

You know what H2L, I'm going to agree with you 50% on this one. I've read several stories, both sides, and it appears that as long as the bridge was being offered, she was willing to accept it. When it became the poster child for "Wasteful Government Spending," she nixed it and used the funds for other state infrastructure.

While she could have been a little more explicit as to when she said "No Thanks" I still think she reacted to the offer as any other governor would have, and it's to her credit to have canceled it when it became an albatross. Many governors would have built it anyways and I believe Obama would have built it but then denied doing so.

[hrdman2luv]

I understand that politicians will be politicians. And all but one that I know of is capable of lying. But that is what's wrong with America today. We all our politicians, we even vote for them after they have lied. We can cathc them in a lie, and they still get voted in. Which say "you can do or say almost what ever you want, and your not going to be held accountable"

On earmarks. I think Palin should have fought for the earmark. But she didn't truely have any say so in the matter anyways. But, you know, with all the surplus she said she created for Alaska, they could have paid for the bridge themselves.

But don't get me wrong. I'm all for earmarks that are for states and districts. My congressman has a war on earmarks. And so my district doesn't recieve any money back from the Federal Government. Even though we pay as much as just about any district.
I don't mind paying taxes. If they would just spend it on things that I agree with.
Isn't foreign aid an earmark. How about the Billion they are sending to Georgia? Or the $11 billion they gave Pakistan to find Usama? Wasn't that an earmark. It was still my tax dollars going to something that I don't agree with.

The video listed, pay attention to the end of it when Dr. Paul asks about sending money to Georgia instead of keeping the money here.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

[Corvair]

Your guy doesn't come across especially well in that clip, H2L.

[hrdman2luv]

Come across to well? Did he not make to very important points. Especially about taking our tax $$, sending it to another country, when our own econemy is about to crash.

[Herb Schaffler]

Maybe Corvair is more concerned about the man's mannerisms than he is about the content of what he has to say.

[hrdman2luv]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

Maybe Corvair is more concerned about the man's mannerisms than he is about the content of what he has to say.

You may be right about that. Maybe he was listing for a "lipstick on a pig" comment to clarify things so well.
That seems to be the only thing some people understand.

Hey Herb, I think that appropiating foreign aid is an earmark. And so is subsidizing Nuclear Power, the Railroad, ExxonMobil, and other corperation.

What do you think.

BTW, the more I learn about Nuclear Power, the less I like it. I'm doing some reasearch right now on Nuclear Power. And I'm finding out some very troublesome facts about it.

Not about it's safety or efficientcy. But the costs, Government subsidies, lobbyist and many other bad things about it. I will start a thread when I'm done about it.

[Herb Schaffler]

I'm also opposed to subsidies, but I tend to favor nuclear power. It is the most efficient producer of electricity, much more so than solar and wind and it doesn't produce the pollution that coal produces and the huge quanity of waste that coal produces. I have read some excellent books on the subject that I highly recommend such as "The Hazards of Not Going Nuclear." "Power to Save the World" is another pro-nuclear power book that I plan to read. It is written by a former radical environmentalist who has seen the light and has come around to accepting nuclear power. But you're right, it is costly and I don't know if it can operate at a profit without subsidies. This is the main argument that libertarians use who are opposed to it. Although I'm opposed to corporate subsidies, because of the efficiency and environmental advantages of nuclear power, it might be something worthwhile for us to spend our taxes on.