11 Oct 08
2 edits
Want to vote for her? I'm sure there will be some of those.
Going to vote for her? I'm sure there will be even more of those.
In this election it isn't who you want to vote for, it is who you think is the lesser of two evils.
Question: Would you have voted for her, even if she had a perfectly clean record? Or would you vote for Obama no matter what?
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarI would have still voted for Obama, but I wanted to see if this will change people's minds. This seems at least as potentially harmful to McCain as Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright are to Obama.
Want to vote for her? I'm sure there will be some of those.
Going to vote for her? I'm sure there will be even more of those.
In this election it isn't who you want to vote for, it is who you think is the lesser of two evils.
Question: Would you have voted for her, even if she had a perfectly clean record? Or would you vote for Obama no matter what?
11 Oct 08
You think so because you are against Palin.
The fact is that Obama was a very close friend to a person who is a terrorists and only wishes he had killed more people. It just goes to show what kind of man Obama really is. To tell you the truth, I like what I hear Obama say in speeches, but I do not think that the words he says in speeches and debates are what he actually believes. He's just trying to play to the middle to get the votes to get elected.
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by randolphIt would have carried a lot more weight except for the FACT that the Democrat politician heading up the "investigation" publicly stated BEFORE the "investigation" that he intended to create an "October Surprise".
A bipartisan panel found that the dismissal of Walter Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner was due to personal reasons, namely him not firing her ex-brother-in-law. Do people really still want to vote for her?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/palin.investigation/index.html
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by Eladarlol, that's hi larious. You know for a fact that he was "close friend" with? Why don't you check some facts. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/ and there are a dozen other sources.
You think so because you are against Palin.
The fact is that Obama was a very close friend to a person who is a terrorists and only wishes he had killed more people. It just goes to show what kind of man Obama really is. To tell you the truth, I like what I hear Obama say in speeches, but I do not think that the words he says in speeches and debates ar ...[text shortened]... he actually believes. He's just trying to play to the middle to get the votes to get elected.
On a lighter note I did look to register the domain nailinpalin.com - it turns out it was bought by the McCain campaign (or at least the same person, from the same place -godaddy.com, from the same city - scottsdale) right before she was named VP candidate. Of course they did,
11 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by leisurelyslothHe didn't say that he "intended" for it to be an October surprise.
It would have carried a lot more weight except for the FACT that the Democrat politician heading up the "investigation" publicly stated BEFORE the "investigation" that he intended to create an "October Surprise".
I'm pretty sure he was asked if it could be an October surprise, and he basically answered, "Yeah, it could."
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by randolphShe's a republican. Of course she abuses power.
A bipartisan panel found that the dismissal of Walter Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner was due to personal reasons, namely him not firing her ex-brother-in-law. Do people really still want to vote for her?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/palin.investigation/index.html
She's shagger her way to the top and big oil and weapons corporates will pay themselves into the usual positions, once she's in office.
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by shavixmirThat would be kind of fun to see her say "I did not have sexual relations with that man."
She's a republican. Of course she abuses power.
She's shagger her way to the top and big oil and weapons corporates will pay themselves into the usual positions, once she's in office.
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by badmoonThat's all well and good, but according to my math at $50 a calender it would take 240 years of calenders to pay for the $12,000 per household that the bailout is costing. I don't think she has that many good years left.
Here is a way to fix the financial mess - Palin does a nude calender and sells it for 50 bucks. January will be a nude Sarah standing in the snow wearing only an ammo belt. She's holding a shotgun and her foot is on top of a moose she just shot.