Sarah Palin - One Smart Cookie

Pocono Joe

Least we forget:

"But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it." Sarah Palin

As I look back on this financial crisis, I can’t help but personally remember it all started when the price of gasoline and oil skyrocketed when oil was over $140 US a barrel. People were having to pay exorbant prices, which caused them to skip their home loan payments. It just seems like a domino effect took place. The US people correctly called for allowing drilling and exploration to take place domestically where it was previously banned.

Now that the price of a barrel of oil is under $40 US, the Democrats in their short sightedness, are leading a push to once again kill any means of self reliance. President Obama is shelving a plan announced in the final days of the Bush presidency to open much of the U.S. coast to oil and gas drilling. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/11/MNB015R7TQ.DTL&type=politics

I am all for converting our energy needs from oil and gas to a more renewable resource, but also know it is decades away from feasibility. So we need to support our need in the meantime. Looks like again we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

So I guess the democrats allowing the ban on drilling to end back during the election can also go under the heading of just another lie perpetrated on the American people just to get votes.

Matt Holck

I think alternative energy sources are feasible in the near future

If there is any oil drawn from the states, the government should control it.

Pocono Joe

Matt Holck wrote: »

I think alternative energy sources are feasible in the near future

Sincerely curious... such as what, and at what cost?

Overheal

I'm going to have to stop you for a second PJ. Again, Sarah Palin is an idiot. I just want to leave it at that. She couldnt even tell you the color of her own shoes if it wasnt written on a prompter.

If you want to talk Energy Policy? Yeah. If McCain and Palin hadn't run their campaign into the ground I would have voted for them knowing Obama was always against Nuclear Power and Drill Baby Drill (annoying catch phrase but it gets the point across). I'm not disagreeing - theres merit to going Hybrid and Renewable, but so too is getting more nuclear power and drilling off our coast. Hell if I had my way we'd sign a treaty with mexico and buy out the entire Gulf.

Either plan would take a couple years to implement properly, but I mean hey, if the idea is to spend 1 Trillion dollars like Bill Clinton in Baton Rouge why didnt we just implement Both energy plans?

But yeah, even when he was right McCain looked like an idiot imo: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=178663&title=indecision-2008-to-drill-or-not

turgon

Forgive me for being naive, but the thought that the OP was not being sarcastic just never occurred to me.

Pocono Joe

turgon wrote: »

Forgive me for being naive, but the thought that the OP was not being sarcastic just never occurred to me.

It’s okay. With all the disinformation out there, it is understandable why at first glance you might have been confused. If interested, she now has her own Political Action Committee. Its called SarahPAC (I won’t link it in case it would violate some obscure rule here, but it’s easy enough to find on the internet). You might be interested in making a contribution .

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

Hell if I had my way we'd sign a treaty with mexico and buy out the entire Gulf.

What a heck of a great idea!!! 100 barrels of oil per year for each of their illegal aliens currently in the United States... BRILLIANT!!!

Overheal

Ah stop. You have to draw the line somewhere. Holding a grudge because of some aliens is quite petty.

GuanYin

if by "smart" you mean "vapid" and if by "cookie" you mean "bimbo" then yes, yes I agree.

Palin's energy policy is a short term plan and if there is an economic fuel war it isn't going to end in this presidential term, or the next.

[mod]
As for yoru "alien's comment. PJ... stick to one topic at a time. [/mod]

JohnMc1

I think anybody with a degree of common sense and not in love with Obama would notice he never says anything of substance when he talks. Atleast with Pres. Bush you knew where you stood with him. He told you exactly what he wanted to do and did it.

Matt Holck

Bush wanted to capture Sadam and kill him for trying to assassinate his daddy, the former head of the CIA.
And he did it



dreams of living in a desolate wasteland have returned with harsh weather
frothing at the front of rising heat
feeding on the burnt offerings of ancient life

so burning oil raises the carbon dioxide footprint

energy is wasted when a 2 ton vehicle transports a 200 lbs man

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

As I look back on this financial crisis, I can’t help but personally remember it all started when the price of gasoline and oil skyrocketed when oil was over $140 US a barrel. People were having to pay exorbant prices, which caused them to skip their home loan payments.

The economic meltdown problem is not a simple issue, but by far more complex than merely the rise in the price of oil. The origin of the current financial crisis began years before the price of oil began to climb to historic levels. There were several articles published during the GW Bush Era warning of the coming world housing bubble as well as the credit crisis. For example:

The global housing boom, 16 June 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."

Source: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4079027

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Atleast with Pres. Bush you knew where you stood with him. He told you exactly what he wanted to do and did it.

What was GW Bush doing 16 June 2005 and the 5 years before (mentioned in The Economist) about mitigating the impact of the forthcoming housing and financial crisis? Nothing! What were the Republicans (who controlled both houses of the US Congress for the first 6 years of the Bush Era) doing while the housing bubble was building? Nothing!

And you could trust to the word of GW Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration? What about the weapons of mass destruction that were used to conn Congress and justify the Second Gulf War (Iraq II)? They didn't exist!

The Mad Hatter

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What was GW Bush doing 16 June 2005 and the 5 years before (mentioned in The Economist) about mitigating the impact of the forthcoming housing and financial crisis? Nothing! What were the Republicans (who controlled both houses of the US Congress for the first 6 years of the Bush Era) doing while the housing bubble was building? Nothing!

Yeah, but...you knew!:D

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

Palin's energy policy is a short term plan and if there is an economic fuel war it isn't going to end in this presidential term, or the next.

Palin has both short term and long term ideas on energy. I think you only addressed the short term areas. http://www.cfr.org/publication/17653/palins_speech_on_energy_policy_toledo_ohio.html

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What was GW Bush doing 16 June 2005 and the 5 years before (mentioned in The Economist) about mitigating the impact of the forthcoming housing and financial crisis? Nothing! What were the Republicans (who controlled both houses of the US Congress for the first 6 years of the Bush Era) doing while the housing bubble was building? Nothing!

What where Bush and the Republicans doing… check it out:
http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=5af7fee2-65e7-4407-99e1-8bd733bfb277

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What about the weapons of mass destruction that were used to conn Congress and justify the Second Gulf War (Iraq II)? They didn't exist!

How about sticking to one topic at a time please. (Hey, what’s good for the abuse is good for the slander;))

Pocono Joe

GuanYin wrote: »

WARNING! Bipolar Tendencies :mad::(:p

Sorry in advance for the bad humor... but I just can’t resist. (I hope it doesn’t get me into too much trouble with the mod)

What, No biPALIN Tendencies?

ghostdancer

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Now that the price of a barrel of oil is under $40 US, the Democrats in their short sightedness, are leading a push to once again kill any means of self reliance. President Obama is shelving a plan announced in the final days of the Bush presidency to open much of the U.S. coast to oil and gas drilling. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/11/MNB015R7TQ.DTL&type=politics

I am all for converting our energy needs from oil and gas to a more renewable resource, but also know it is decades away from feasibility. So we need to support our need in the meantime. Looks like again we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

So I guess the democrats allowing the ban on drilling to end back during the election can also go under the heading of just another lie perpetrated on the American people just to get votes.

it's funny that you're promoting off-shore drilling while at the same time recognising that foreign oil independence is decades away.

opening up the coasts for drilling would produce an estimated 2% increase in total oil sourced, and that would only happen within 10-15 years.

perhaps the Democrats and their short-sightedness recognise that off-shore drilling is a nonsensical idea for any energy plan, and a pathetic crowd-pleaser that only the idiots who turn up to shout "drill baby drill" would actually believe is worth pursuing.





then again, most people who think that off-shore drilling is a good energy plan, also thought that a gas tax holiday was also a good idea, so they're clearly of a similar intelligence level as Sarah "the bailout pal jobs shores up the healthcare and rears his unamerican head" Palin.
i wish her well with SarahPAC, and hopefully she wins the R nomination, it'll be fun to see what level of ineptitude and entertainment she brings with her this time around as the D's coast to an easy win.

Pocono Joe

If you think we can ever get completely off oil, gas, and coal, then you are in for one rude awakening. I have been hearing that "10-15 year" nonsense for over 20 years. Looks like we are decades behind the 8 ball. But in actuality the timeframe for production is far less, and would be even shorter without government intervention. I guess China is pretty stupid in your opinion because while Washington hesitates over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.

And at the current time I’m hoping Michael Steele gets the Republican nod in 2012.

Matt Holck

yes, we are a car culture
we would sacrifice the future to drive around in steal boxes

thanks for the graph ghostdancer
puts things in perspective
try to avoid empty slander words

see what level of ineptitude and

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Palin has both short term and long term ideas on energy. I think you only addressed the short term areas.

- a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. When the last section is laid and its valves are opened, that pipeline will lead America one step farther away from reliance on foreign energy.

Palin's Speech on Energy Policy Toledo, Ohio
Published October 29, 2008

I hear the Iranian pipeline is a big deal. why shouldn't one in North America

Pocono Joe wrote: »

What where Bush and the Republicans doing… check it out:
http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=5af7fee2-65e7-4407-99e1-8bd733bfb277

the sentences are too long

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

What where Bush and the Republicans doing… check it out:
http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=5af7fee2-65e7-4407-99e1-8bd733bfb277

tl;dr

Care to briefly summarize why any of that absolves the GOP, who was running all 3 branches of gov't in majority for 6 years, of any wrong-doing?? I notice no statistics for 2006, the last year of their majority. what were they doing for all that time? sitting on their asses when they had all the power in the world to pass the legislation that bush supposedly was so adamant that got passed to regulate F&F? I just dont see from parsing over your link why they needed democrats to agree with anything they were saying, and just push the regulation bill through that the GOP was proposing.

GuanYin

I may have been harsh on PJ, however as I said, stick to one topic

(this is just a general comment, I'm not directing it at anyone)

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

tl;dr
Care to briefly summarize why any of that absolves the GOP, who was running all 3 branches of gov't in majority for 6 years, of any wrong-doing?? I notice no statistics for 2006, the last year of their majority. what were they doing for all that time? sitting on their asses when they had all the power in the world to pass the legislation that bush supposedly was so adamant that got passed to regulate F&F? I just dont see from parsing over your link why they needed democrats to agree with anything they were saying, and just push the regulation bill through that the GOP was proposing.

To summarize: The Republicans tried and tried and tried and tried and tried to warn congress of the problems with the GSEs. It just fell on deaf ears.

I did not post it in an attempt to absolve the GOP, just a rebuttal over B!ue Lagoon’s GOP "NOTHING" comment.

And why didn’t more get done when Republicans were in power... the same reason why the democrats who had the majority at the start of the Clinton years didn’t get more done: Parties Aren’t Everything, Interest Groups, Vox Populi, No Supermajority, Filibusters, Endless Debate, And Hard Choices. (Welcome to the ways of the US government.)

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

To summarize: The Republicans tried and tried and tried and tried and tried to warn congress of the problems with the GSEs. It just fell on deaf ears.

I did not post it in an attempt to absolve the GOP, just a rebuttal over B!ue Lagoon’s GOP "NOTHING" comment.

Republicans controlled (now let me repeat that for the Republicans and their sympathizers who conveniently forget), the Republicans controlled the US Congress (both the House and Senate) for the first 6 years of the GW Bush presidency, the Executive branch of the US government, and were stacking the US Supreme Court with judges favourable to their cause (like Roberts), and during those 6 years they knew that the financial crises was coming by their own admission, but did nothing substantial to mitigate the economic meltdown. Even self-proclaimed Republican "Mavericks" like McCain voted 90 percent in favour of Bush policies, so why didn't Republicans vote to change and better regulate financial policies that allowed banks, other lending institutions, and brokerage houses to run America into the financial dumpster? Why? Because those millionaires and billionaires running and profiting from those banks and other for-profit financial institutions were mostly Republicans, who contributed to the election and reelection of Bush and other Republicans.

Further, why did the controlling Republicans and the Bush administration allow the Federal deficit to almost double since the Clinton era to historic highs, from approximately $5.6 trillion to almost $11 trillion? I thought that one of the Republican political platforms was fiscal responsibility, but it appears that during those 6 years of control they did not evidence it. Furthermore, if we talk about the control of the US Congress, the Republicans had control before these first 6 years of GW Bush, going way back into the Clinton Era.

Now Republicans (and Republican sympathizers), I hear a lot of crying about the Democrats now controlling the US Congress and the Executive (just like the Republicans did earlier), and low and behold they are voting what they want through (the recent bailout, closing Gitmo, etc.), and the minority seat Republicans cannot stop it, no matter what tactics they try in the the House or Senate, so why couldn't they do the same when they were in control and mitigate the coming financial crises? Why? Because it was in the Republican (fat billionaire cat) best interests to profit hugely before the meltdown and let the middle class people who have their retirements in stocks and bonds bite the bullet, along with the taxpayers in general with billion dollar bailouts.

Most Repubicans (and their sympathizers) I believe are still in DENIAL that they LOST the election. They LOST control of the US House of Representatives. They LOST control of the US Senate. They LOST the presidency/Executive. Rather than see this as a wake-up call that they had LOST sight of what would attract a majority of American voters to their cause, they continue to fuss and complain about Obama this and Obama that, or the Democrats this or the Democrats that, instead of learning from their LOSSES, and begin to positively and proactively restructure their party to represent the majority of the American people's interests. What I have learned while in America these past 3 years is that no one here likes a POOR LOSER, so Republicans stop complaining, and do something positive for a change!

And Sarah Palin's statement that started this OP epitomizes the POOR LOSER attitude of the Republican Party.

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

To summarize: The Republicans tried and tried and tried and tried and tried to warn congress of the problems with the GSEs. It just fell on deaf ears.

And yet still failed to pass preventative measures despite monopolizing the government. Those interest groups you speak of? Politicians (including Republicans) who were happy to live off the fat from the situation. Frankly the GOP efforts to get their own members into action were an abysmal failure, and its a wonder theyre sitting in the corner like an ugly puppy with a broken leg. Although I'm sure they're all happy to watch the Democrats pick up their piss and sh!t while they count all the money they made on the side, trying to profit from the coming collapse rather than stop it.

And what didnt the Dems get done during the 90s? While they were putting money back into the economy? Now I was a wee thing those days, so I dont know first hand. But I do know until you mentioned it just now, I havent heard any modern day criticism of the house and senate in the 90s. This collapse will be talked about for the next decade far and wide.

And - before you answer - does any of your 90s criticism hold a candle to doubling the deficit and sleeping behind the wheel of the biggest crash in half a century?

2Scoops

Matt Holck wrote: »

please give an example

A cookie isn't a creationist. A cookie doesn't whip up anti-Russian sentiment to secure an election. A cookie doesn't dismiss the importance of genetic research on Drosophila Melanogaster to autism and many other medical problems. But you're right, Sarah Palin is really smart. I apologize if I offended you.

Manic Moran

low and behold they are voting what they want through (the recent bailout, closing Gitmo, etc.), and the minority seat Republicans cannot stop it, no matter what tactics they try in the the House or Senate

Wasn't Obama complaining only last week that the Republicans were preventing him from passing the stimulus bill? When was the last time anyone from any party had a supermajority?

Which reminds me, you had posted something of that 'they lost' rant before but I didn't have the time to respond. Whilst it is true that the Republicans did not perform as well as the Democrats, it cannot be forgotten that they still attained the votes of a substantial minority of the populace: Enough that our system has been written to determine that the Democrats may not run roughshod over the Republicans, and the 40% or so representation by the Republicans have every right to expect that their representatives will represent them as tenaciously (if not more so) now as they would were they in the majority.

NTM

GuanYin

Posts deleted.

Fathermordmas banned.

Blue Lagoon, report the posts in future, no need to reply in the thread.

2Scoops, Overheal, post on topic or not at all.

Pocono Joe

Okay let me get this straight. We have a couple people here who are complaining about how the republicans allowed increased spending to offset the dot.com crisis that hit at the end of Clinton’s administration, and the effects on the economy of such travesties as 911 and hurricane Katrina... and are now glorifying Obama’s Porkulus spending bill. So is the complaint that the republicans didn’t spend enough? That the right thing would have been to spend TRILLIONS more?

I already gave a portion of my take on the spending in another post, and was lambasted for it, so I won’t revisit it again. But another reason why the republicans didn’t ramrod every GOP issue upon the American people with the mandate that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, like the democrats are currently doing. President GWBush tried to govern from the center of the American populous, not the center of the republican party as Obama is now doing by completely shutting out the republicans. The republicans tried to work with democrats for the betterment of the country when they were in power. I guess they should have taken the Obama stance and said WE WON, SCREW YOU. Hey... live and learn I guess. I guess we won't let that happen again.

I also find it rather sadly funny how a thread - amounting to pretty much a vindication on Palin’s accusations about the democrat energy policy DURING THE ELECTION, has become attacks on the history of republicans. I guess we can’t seem to handle the issue (topic) at hand, or the new adminstration's misteps?

Oh yeah... look at Hillarycare for an example of what the democrats were unable to accomplish when they had control of all phases of government. That may explain the process better for you.

And by the way... the left have one more justices on the supreme court than the right has.

Overheal

Its funny because the budget cuts to FEMA really helped out with the Katrina recovery, loads. 9/11, was it really that big of a market upset? We lost a trading center, the market was still there. The products, companies, exports, services to invest in, were all still there, and very much intact and operating smoothly on the morning of 9/11.



We didnt start the gross war spending until 2003.

Tragically, it was democratic legislation that brought the housing bubble which in a twisted way, got us well out of the .com crash. At the height of the property bubble the index was double the peak of the .com bubble. To think if the republicans had at that stage implemented their "prophetic legislation" The economy mightn't have crashed back to 1999, and we'd still be sitting on fat gains from the property boon.

Pocono Joe

Sigh... I guess I’ll have to play along.

So how’s the research on HILLARYCARE going?

One thing is positive about Obama's job performance so far... he’s collected over $150,000 in back taxes.

Hopefully the first few jobs the democrats "create" is a few staffers to actually read what is in the stimulus package... because obviously no one got a chance to read it before the emergency vote had to take place. (One thing I can’t quite figure out though, which was the real emergency... Pelosi’s date with the Pope, or Obama’s vacation.)

Overheal

Like nobody got to read the Patriot Act the morning it was signed, after being completely rewritten in the middle of the night?

Black Swan

Revisiting Sarah Palin's comment in the OP:

Pocono Joe wrote: »

"The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … "

GW Bush did this, especially by almost doubling the federal deficit to historic highs, going from approximately $5.6 trillion at the end of the Clinton Era, to about $11 trillion.

Smart Cookie Sarah Palin exemplified this big spending trend in her small population state when she strongly supported the funding of "The Bridge to Nowhere" for about $400 million in federal highway funds, only to reverse her decision after the news media proclaimed to the nation how ridiculous and wasteful it was.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

give you more orders from Washington …

Using the Patriot Act to bypass US Constitutional rights to privacy and due process by spying on millions of innocent US citizen telephone and Internet communications with the help of AT&T (both later being sued by the ACLU for civil rights violations, causing the GW Bush Administration to cease this practice).

Spying on what books hundreds of thousands of innocent college students check out in their university libraries, violating their rights to free speech, privacy, and due process (A large and public protest by University of Texas-Austin students in 2004 drew media attention, an ACLU suit, and eventual backing off of the GW Bush Administration).

Such "orders from Washington" by GW Bush would be cause for George Orwell to smile.