FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

is_that_so

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Odd that I listened to that without managing to evoke any of the truly ridiculous nonsense you've come up with. I think they would call that differences of perception. I also have to say that is some very fine condescension. I'm guessing that you actually know as little about those people and how they think as I do. Much as some of your input on this thread has offered the occasional insight, your enthusiasm to pick a fight with anything and everything really does your case no favours.

Hobbes

Martyr wrote: »

Sounds like McCain when talking about the U.S Economy.

Lets just call it like it is. McCain is a liar.

Before peoples start going "Oh no he isn't", I cite the sex-ed for toddlers slur against Obama.

In his advert he tries to claim that Obama is for teaching sex education to toddlers. What he fails to point out about the bill that in fact it was teaching kids how to protect themselves against pedos and abuse.

It had nothing to do teaching full on sex education to small children.

He also neglected to mention that in the bill there is an opt-out option if parents feel their children shouldn't be taught the material. So even the full on sex-ed part is false.

So I am pretty sure McCain is not for child molestation, so the only other option is he is a liar.

Mad Finn

How easy is it to kick out a vice president once elected?

It could be that the Republicans see the electoral wow-factor that Palin can bring but are not so dumb as to risk such a fruit cake being the automatic next in line to the presidency.

So, say she and McCain get elected is there a chance that they could then look for a way to have her removed from office almost immediately?

There is a precedent for this. Back in 1972 Richard Nixon won the election with the greatest landslide in American history. His running mate, as in 1968, was Spiro Agnew, a man who had had a similar rapid rise from being Baltimore county executive to Governor of Maryland to VP nominee in just six years. Sound familiar?

Many people carried placards saying "Spiro who?" and the Democrats ran TV commercials which just had the slogan "Spiro Agnew for Vice President" on the screen and the sound of somebody chuckling helplessly in the background. It then closed with the warning, "It would be funny if it wasn't so serious."

Following his re-election in 1972 Agnew came under investigation for criminal corruption charges and resigned the vice presidency. He was replaced by Gerald Ford. Then in 1974 Nixon had to resign because of the Watergate scandal and Ford became president. I believe he was the only one ever to become president without ever being on an election ticket.

I'm not suggesting there was a conspiracy to have Agnew elected and then removed. He was in office for five years after all. But given that it is possible to remove a VP, I wonder if anybody in the GOP has factored this into their plans this time round.

Gotta have a conspiracy theory somewhere.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would appear to me that most posters have attempted to place the blame on either the Democrats or the Republicans for the housing bubble, which seems myopic and ethnocentric? Ireland had a housing bubble that became evident in the past couple of years, as it did for many countries around the world. How could real estate legislation and regulation in the USA (or related banking practices) account for the global housing bubble in Ireland, Britain, Australia, France, Spain, and China for example? See below Economist article dated 16 June 2005:

The global housing boom, Jun 16th 2005, From The Economist print edition

NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history. …

It would seem that the economic forces that impacted the housing market were global, not isolated to US real estate legislation and regulation (or related banking practices)?

Including this Economist article, I do remember reading many articles over the past 3 to 4 years from various sources that warned of runaway housing prices, not just in the US, but in other countries too, like Ireland.

My question is, who was minding the store in the US while all these articles were being published during recent years? Was everyone out to lunch? Did G.W. Bush, or anyone in his cabinet, or the US Congress read these articles that I also read?:rolleyes:

What has Sarah Palin offered in terms of economic policy intended to mitigate the impacts of the burst housing bubble in the US? Anything specific? Links? Or is she out to lunch too?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ahh - the Investor's Business Daily. Well known climate-change denial rag of the corporate 'free-market' right. They'll surely not be partisan?

Pocono Joe

Sorry donnegalfella, but because your source is not a left-leaning publication or Obama loving media outlet... it holds absolutely no credibility in this forum. I guess you'll have to try harder. :rolleyes:

BenjAii

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

It would seem that the economic forces that impacted the housing market were global, not isolated to US real estate legislation and regulation (or related banking practices)?

Including this Economist article, I do remember reading many articles over the past 3 to 4 years from various sources that warned of runaway housing prices, not just in the US, but in other countries too, like Ireland.

My question is, who was minding the store in the US while all these articles were being published during recent years? Was everyone out to lunch? Did G.W. Bush, or anyone in his cabinet, or the US Congress read these articles that I also read?:rolleyes:

While its true lots of countries have had a housing bubble, what seems to be unique to America and the actual crux of the problem, is the amount of people who had access to mortgages that were not credit worthy.

You can argue all of America's economic growth this century has been based on every expanding credit. With the credit-worthy segment of the population tapped, there was nowhere else to go to continue this growth but start extending money to those unable to pay it back, and then try and make money from that.

Looking at it now its obvious its little more than a Ponzi scheme, but this bias in the economy is so widespread and systematc its pointless blaming it on party politics.

The truth is as dismal as the US economy has been for most people this century (no real income growth), it would only have appeared worse had the credit boom not happened.

It may just be dawning on Americans how truly dire their economic situation has become.

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sorry donnegalfella, but because your source is not a left-leaning publication or Obama loving media outlet... it holds absolutely no credibility in this forum. I guess you'll have to try harder. :rolleyes:

I'd settle for a source that doesn't spend all of it's time calling for removal of all government regulation of the markets, and parroting the petro-corporation line on climate change. Some degree of credibility would be a charm.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Facts?

'the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism'

'Clinton and his social engineers'

the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households

'The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie'

'Clinton's social experiment'

Pull the other one.

bobbyjoe

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Publications that deny climate change is happening tend to follow ideological rather than realistic editorial lines. Generally they are right wing and Republican.

So the crisis is Clintons fault despite being out of power for eight years?? What did Bush do to stop it?

alastair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It speaks to the credibility and motivations of the paper.

Would have thought this was obvious?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah, so - not about the 'facts' at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Seanies32 wrote: »

I'm seriously confused here.

If Carter was so wrong, why was the law not repealed or amended?

Why blame Carter for a wrong 30 years ago that could easily have been changed since?

Methinks, you're looking for somebody to blame and a law that worked ok for 20 odd years is now partly to blame for the last 10!

PS: Maybe the selfish manipulation of laws like that in the last 8 years has contributed to the sub prime crisis. Or was this crisis always there, but it has suddenly just became a major issue?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Any chance of answering Questions 1 and 2?

Also, was the bill backed by both Houses when it was changed?
Did it get bipartisan support in both Houses?

When was the legislation introduced or rules relaxed, to allow for mortgage backed securities being sold as investments?

If it was made during the Clinton era, was any attempt made to reverse the changes, or was the law further relaxed?

How exactly did the bill force banks to lend to higher risk categories and what where the penalties if they didn't?

alastair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are no facts in that op-ed piece, bar the fact that Clinton associates worked for FNMA over the years. Nothing to suggest that Clinton's policies are as described, or in any way responsible for the mortgage crisis.

Maybe you could elucidate what facts it contains?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes indeed - and they'll also note the absence of your supposed 'facts' in the article, and heapings of partisan punditry in their stead.

I'm deflecting nothing - I'm pointing out that the cupboard is bare.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, thought you would have had the information handy!

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I noticed you didn't address my points on the feds 11 times cutting interest rates, not the halving of refused mortgage applications, both happening after 2001. You can say it started in 1997 and I can say it started in 2001, but in the end the facts show that it was under Bush's watch that the bubble started and burst.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

so just how long has it been since charlie gibson or sarah palin was mentioned in this thread?



come on.

Martyr

donegalfella, brianthebard and alastair made perfectly good points against your fantasy statements..and you got "Pwn3d", again.

it was funny to hear Sarah mention that the Iraq war was a "task that is from God"

You would expect that kind of comment from a fundamentalist muslim, but not from a christian..fundamentalist who could be president of the US.

even funnier to hear mc cain say Sarah was "a partner and a soulmate" after only meeting her ONCE.

Who does that? John McCain

Is he a flip-flopper? http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html
Or maybe its just dementia setting in.

Sand

Cpt Surf

You said the South was not "rural America". I pointed that out as a ridiculous statement, which it is.

The South isnt rural America, no more than Ireland is Europe. I raised the points I made in relation to a rural - urban voting divide. You attempted to equate all of rural america with the South, which ignores all the other areas that are rural without being in "the South". Youre wrong. Its time to move on.

What I was trying to point out was that your post about how the Democratic party cant or does not appeal to rural people is nonsense, which it is.

Well, heres a electoral map for the 2004 election that another poster linked in another thread. Google up a map of the US showing population densities. Ill let you figure out the implications...



See how it compares to the blunt state electoral vote...



Maybe my post about a state divide not being accurate, and a rural-urban one might have something to it? Or not....who knows, perhaps saying the South can be substituted for rural america can teach us more than....I dont know, stuff like facts, data, etc etc...

Oh and if the implications you figured out above didnt include the theme "Sand is right", heres a quote from the same sites analysis of the 2006 US elections...

Because densely populated areas of the country tend to vote Democratic, the "blue" districts occupy smaller area on average, but they are nonetheless large in terms of numbers of people,

I underlined the parts where you were wrong. To help you.

It also read like a thesis statement for some pseudo-intellectual social commentary written about a country in which the arrogant author neither lives in or is a citizen of.

Well, I dont really post my views to meet any standards you might have, so I dont know what to tell you. I will plead guilty to posting my opinion on a lot of matters happening outside of Ireland though. One of the risks of reading Irish politics forums Im afraid - Irish people sounding off on other countries and events therein. Bastards.

But I've always found your posts to be challenging and edumucational though.

brianthebard

Overheal wrote: »

so just how long has it been since charlie gibson or sarah palin was mentioned in this thread?



come on.

Well on that note; Does anyone feel its beyond justification that she made rape victims pay $1200 for their own rape kits while she was mayor?

norbert64

so getting back to Gibson, watching the interview there again, it did kinda seem an awful lot like the school principal talking down to the prom queen, lol.

sink

brianthebard wrote: »

Well on that note; Does anyone feel its beyond justification that she made rape victims pay $1200 for their own rape kits while she was mayor?

I find that hard to believe, source?

Overheal

whats in a rape kit? Rope Duct Tape and Condoms?

sink

Overheal wrote: »

whats in a rape kit? Rope Duct Tape and Condoms?

lol

bobbyjoe

Its a kit used to take samples from rape victims to get evidence. Palin allegedly makes the victim pay for this.

Vid about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nmk6BSUwEA

Overheal

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Its a kit used to take samples from rape victims to get evidence. Palin allegedly makes the victim pay for this.

Vid about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nmk6BSUwEA

"Under what reasoning"

Tests are expensive and false accusations are rampant.

Its still bull****. I dont know how you could charge a victim like that.

brianthebard

sink wrote: »

I find that hard to believe, source?

Ask and you shall receive (sources);

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-81914

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html

http://www.wbaltv.com/print/17456860/detail.html#

From the last link.

Then-Gov. Tony Knowles said Thursday that Wasilla was unique in the state in charging rape victims for the cost of doing the law enforcement necessary for solving the crime.

When Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

Palin had been in office for four years when the practice of charging rape victims got the attention of state lawmakers in 2000, who passed a bill to stop the practice.

Also I heard something about Biden sponsoring a bill to prevent this sort of thing altogether, and McCain voted against it. However I haven't done the research on that one yet, so will post later if its corroborated.


Edit: another link
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

bobbyjoe

Overheal wrote: »

"Under what reasoning"

Tests are expensive and false accusations are rampant.

Its still bull****. I dont know how you could charge a victim like that.

Someone should ask her. Or would that be sexist?
Seems McCain was for victims paying as well. Plus if someone got pregnant from rape Palin would want to force them to have the baby.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

For some views on the Community Reinvestment Act and its part in the Subprime crisis:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

and:http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0

Basically these argue there was too much Govt. interference and regulation.

http://www.newamerica.net/blog/asset-building/2008/no-larry-cra-didn-t-cause-sub-prime-mess-3210

and: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis

However these suggest it wasn't the CRA loans, it was the larger unregulated Subprime sector.

Nothing new there really, one side blames too much regulation, the other too little!

brianthebard

The article

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/mccain-voted-against-biden-law.html

The senate votes, as the article outlines;

1994 vote

2007 vote

final passage I guess he really didn't want rape victims getting free kits.

Another article on Palin and the rape kits.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014669.php

Just to review; the Alaskan gov had to pass a law to stop this just for Wasilla, where Palin had been mayor for four years and done nothing to stop this practice. More than that, she hired the police chief who was in favour of sparing the taxpayers any extra costs like rape kits. Oh and McCain didn't/doesn't believe that rape victims should get free kits. This bill was originally floated in 1994, a period when even those who dislike McCain generally believe that he was more principled and a nicer republican than most, before he ran for president and lost his conscious. Well it appears it was never there in the first place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

I think it was cause you called me a troll, rather than any political motivation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

You won't be commenting here anymore because you believe that you shouldn't have to obey the rules, and as such - for persistent rule-breaking - I've removed your access.

Black Swan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What has Sarah Palin offered in terms of economic policy intended to mitigate the impacts of the burst housing bubble in the US? Anything specific? Links? Or is she out to lunch too?

Since this is a thread about Sarah Palin and not Bush or Clinton or others, can anyone answer the above question?

Lirange

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Or is she out to lunch too?

There it is. Mooseburgers natch.

jarom676

Im a latter-day Saint (Mormon) and im Irish. im proud of being both. i think the whole American election is a left vs right battle. In my opinion Mitt Romney would have made the best President out of the lot of them, its a pity that anti-Mormon bias won out in the republican camp and that dim wit McCain got the nod. Having said that if i was in America i would still vote for him over Obama any day. The once great Democratic party has been taken over the the left and is full of loonies who would destroy America. McCain is far more experienced than Obama and i hope he wins but i think maybe the republicans shot themselvs in the foot by not choosing Romney, he would be invaluable as president in these difficult times.

lostexpectation

the american left is rightwing

Black Swan

jarom676 wrote: »

The once great Democratic party has been taken over the the left and is full of loonies who would destroy America.

A sweeping generalisation? There are quite a bit more US citizens registered as Democratic party voters than registered Republicans.

"In 2004, it was the largest political party, with 72 million voters (42.6% of 169 million registered) claiming affiliation. An August 2008 estimate is that 51% of registered voters, including independents, lean toward the Democratic Party and 38% lean toward the Republican Party."

Given this, if they have been "taken over" by the left, then why don't the Democrats sweep all the US elections, including this presidential by simply voting Democratic? Could it be that the Democratic party has not been "taken over" by any particular interest group, and that in fact they historically evidence a great deal of diversity of interests, from liberal to conservative, sometimes fighting among themselves, or crossing over and voting Republican or third party, or staying at home and not voting, so much that they lose many state and national elections?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

FatherTed

jarom676 wrote: »

Im a latter-day Saint (Mormon) and im Irish. im proud of being both. i think the whole American election is a left vs right battle. In my opinion Mitt Romney would have made the best President out of the lot of them, its a pity that anti-Mormon bias won out in the republican camp and that dim wit McCain got the nod. Having said that if i was in America i would still vote for him over Obama any day. The once great Democratic party has been taken over the the left and is full of loonies who would destroy America. McCain is far more experienced than Obama and i hope he wins but i think maybe the republicans shot themselvs in the foot by not choosing Romney, he would be invaluable as president in these difficult times.

Not only that but according to the McCain campaign, Obama is a racist terrorist. Or a terrorist racist. I don't know which. Maybe a reporter that is not named Hanitty could ask Sarah Palin that question. Oh but then again as she'll have to get back to us on that one. In any case, I'm guessing the Washington Eliltest Media(despite Katie Couric being based in NYC) are now banned for asking "gotcha" questions such as "What newspapers do you read?".

jmayo

FatherTed wrote: »

Not only that but according to the McCain campaign, Obama is a racist terrorist. Or a terrorist racist. I don't know which. Maybe a reporter that is not named Hanitty could ask Sarah Palin that question. Oh but then again as she'll have to get back to us on that one. In any case, I'm guessing the Washington Eliltest Media(despite Katie Couric being based in NYC) are now banned for asking "gotcha" questions such as "What newspapers do you read?".

The more pertinent question would be
"Have you actually read anything apart from the bible ?"

Think about it is a good label to hang on Obama, then certain people can pretend they hate him becuase he hangs out with terrorists.

Does anybody remember how Rumsfled used to actaully hang out with Saddam and the Bushes hung out with the Bin Laddins ?