By Squirrellygirl

June 21, 2011 2:39 PM | Link to this

Most Americans would think it is anti-colonial/socialist to send billions of U.S. dollars out of our country (example, to Brazil for drilling there so, as Obama said, we can purchase our oil from them!) has under Obama’s administration, especially when so many Americans are dealing with being unemployed. You see, I gave you an example of how Obama is anti-colonial. He traveled on taxpayers dime APOLOGIZING for America’s colonialism! Another example of it right there! And yes, Americans sought freedom to worship as they please, but then you would have to delve into our forefathers’ letter to find that out. You probably won’t find it in our kids’ textbooks because that information has been replaced with favorable information on Muslims and Mexican superiority. Bleh!

By Irishguy

June 17, 2011 6:26 PM | Link to this

Mark, I suppose Mr Edwards had to be fairly innovative to hide his mistress and child as long as he did. I suppose (although I think it’s crazy) Mrs Palin could have been as innovative in claiming some one else’s child as her own. Because I’m not much of a conspiracy guy, maybe you can fill me in. Since it wasn’t to conceal Bristol’s pregnancy, what would be the motivation for such a ruse?

By Raoul

June 17, 2011 4:49 PM | Link to this

The MSM loved John Edwards. He amassed his fortunes by winning lawsuits against the medical field by mining the wealth of the insurance companies and the rich obstetricians who, by sometimes delaying cesarean sections, supposedly caused cerebral palsey. Of course he was proven wrong later, but the MSM never cared; after all he socked it to the insurance companies, who we are all supposed to hate. It’s the kind of liberal phantasies that drive up the cost of health care. John Edwards often spoke of 2 Americas: turns out it was true. There was the roughly half of America that you could easily fit inside the property lines of his palatial estate, and the other half. He was a huckster, and the press did not care until it was impossible to ignore it.

By Mark from St Paul

June 17, 2011 11:50 AM | Link to this

IG, the scandal with Palin is that she DIDN’T birth that child, and the scandal about the Edwards scandal is the innovative way in which a private payment from a supporter was called a campaign donation violation when the donor would have given him the money even if he hadn’t have been running. Here in Minnesota Norm Coleman was just “acquitted” for accepting $100,000 in gifts from an Iranian businessman (Coleman’s calling it a vindication that it’s apparently legal to buy clothes and pay for a kitchen remodeling with gifts if you quick do it between terms in office). SG, it’s amazing how we both dislike Obama yet your reasons for doing so are almost entirely without merit. Anti-colonial socialist? 1) IF YOU’RE AN AMERICAN YOU ARE BY DEFINITION ANTI-COLONIALIST. Do you think we fought the Revolutionary War over which Bible to use? The original tea party was a protest against colonialism period. 2) Netroots Nation is here in the Twin Cities this weekend. These folks are progressives with some socialists mixed in and the only thing they all have in common is their dissatisfaction with Obama. He’s as far from being a socialist as you can get. Please stick to real criticism and not repeats of what some jacka__ said on TV last night.

By Squirrellygirl

June 17, 2011 10:27 AM | Link to this

I was with ya on your post, Mark, up until you got to Palin. Then you are so sure they will find something on her, but you have nothing to base that on except for your hatred of her. Why do you hate her so much? Because she isn’t as great an articulator as Obama? She still is able to get the important points across. To me, it is better to have great policies with substance instead of the greatest orator with empty rhetoric. Obama says a lot of inspiring things, but when you get to the meat of what his policies are, they do the exact opposite imo. Like his forced redistribution of wealth thingee which is socialism. Like his necessarily skyrocketing energy policies. Does he mean well? I’m not even convinced of that. I really believe now that Obama is an anti-colonial socialist who is undercover of trying to appear as a centrist. His bills are written by socialists, his boyhood friends, his advisors, he started his political career with Bill Ayers, The Weather Underground—plotted murder of 25 million Americans back in 70’s—bombing at police dept.

By Irishguy

June 16, 2011 11:41 PM | Link to this

Mark the scandal of cheating on his dying wife, fathering an illegitimate child and allegedly using campaign money to hush the mistress up, is the only Edwards scandal I’m aware of. Guess I’ll have to look over the Enquirer at the checkout for any others. I’m pretty confident no matter what the relentless digging into Mrs Palin’s past unearths, it won’t involve her cheating on her terminaly ill spouse, birthing a child and paying off the “baby daddy” to keep it all under wraps. I’m also fairly certain Mrs Palin never took $400 from the campaign funds for a hair cut.

By Mark from St Paul

June 16, 2011 4:20 PM | Link to this

As a former John Edwards supporter, I would be deeply appreciative of any links connecting him to ANY scandal other than his bastard. Sleeping with his video producer cost him my support, but he’s done nothing to impeach his policy positions, all of which were better than Obama’s (and radically better than Bush’s). Otherwise continue laughing it up over Palin. Before year’s end you’ll both be shocked at how utterly discredited she will be by her own actions.

By Raoul

June 16, 2011 8:54 AM | Link to this

Irish, are you trying to suggest the mainstream media purposely keeps silent on stories that harm their favorite candidates, celebrities, etc., and only joins the party after the stories break? What a shocking revelation! Could that be why we know more about Bristol Palin than we do about Barrack Obama? You make an intriguing point.

By Irishguy

June 16, 2011 7:03 AM | Link to this

Mark this could be the dirt the medias relentless digging into Mrs Palin’s past has finally exposed! After days of exhausting research AOL/HuffPo (consider the source) has breathlessly announced: “She may have attended four universities, but Sarah Palin still writes like an eighth-grader. AOL Weird News gave two writing analytic companies samples of the former Alaska governor’s recently released emails and both agree that the Tea Party favorite writes as if she’s in middle school”.

By Irishguy

June 15, 2011 10:12 PM | Link to this

The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards scandal and the news of Rev Jackson’s “love child”. Only because the Mainstream media wouldn’t touch the story. The same reason Drudge was able to be first with the Lewinsky scandal, which Michael Isakoff of Newsweek sat on. If the media put 1% of the energy into vetting those candidates that they expended on Mrs Palin, they could have gotten the scoops. What media bias???

By Raoul

June 15, 2011 9:05 PM | Link to this

I guess you might be able to put John Edwards in the “under vetted VP candidate” category. A whole lot of liberals thought he was the answer. Too bad they didn’t ask enough questions. But regarding Sarah Palin, if it turns out she has lied about being Trig’s mother, so be it. I think everyone will get over it and move on. The creepy aspect of sifting through her emails, moving next door to observe and write an already planned hit piece, and obsessing over pictures, ect., will remain. As far as Blowfly’s comments about Republicans believing God is on the side of Republicans I am reminded of Bill Clinton strolling through black churches in Harlem, the Good Book in his hand, not long after he cut and ran as far away as he could from the Ron Brown fiasco. Democrats seem to love the Lord their God when they are on the campaign stump; at least Republicans have a more consistent approach to religion and it’s importance to most Americans. Some Republicans push it a little too far, but at least in a consistent manner, whether on the stump or not.

By Irishguy

June 15, 2011 6:42 PM | Link to this

“so called vetting”, seriously??? Maybe your hearing the same stories over and over again because there’s nothing left to discover. If this latest email frenzy doesn’t convince you I guess nothing ever will. I’m shocked anyone believes Trig isn’t Mrs Palins’ child. My wife was phoning and letter writing moments after the birth of our kids, I don’t find that at all unusual. There’s really no valid reason for a private citizen to release her child’s birth certificate to satisfy some folks curiosity. And if she does run (I don’t think she will) didn’t Mr Obama say families should be off limits? Or does that only apply to Dem’s families? I’m sure it will become public someday. And when it does, you’ll claim it’s forged, bogus, invalid, or doesn’t pass your smell test. 90% or so of the media would love to be the ones to “expose” her and pick up their Pulitzers. I can’t imagine the Palins could keep any secrets at all.

By Mark from St Paul

June 15, 2011 3:54 PM | Link to this

IG, if you did an historical search of Google News, you’d find that the so-called vetting of Sarah Palin consisted of the same stories told over and over again, with very little new ground broken. Again, the email dump has established that within an hour of giving birth to Trig, Palin was emailing others about local political matters. She is not Trig’s mom, and the entire right and all the media will be on the receiving end of a huge black eye when this story finally breaks later this year. Expect much spin when the media finally asks to see Trig’s birth certificate (hint: they’ll NEVER see it because she’ll never release it).

By Squirrellygirl

June 15, 2011 8:40 AM | Link to this

Let me try to clarify once more, Obama put us in 4 wars at one time, 2 of those wars were added by Obama himself. Iraq and Afghanistan we were already engaged in war, but Obama added Yemen and Libya. Also, Obama bombed Pakistan, and he’s siding with the UN against Israel (our ally for decaded before Obama’s administration).

By Squirrellygirl

June 15, 2011 8:36 AM | Link to this

Vick, again I could have stated that better. Obama has us in 4 wars, not put us in 4 wars, but he has put us in 2 of those wars. Yemen and Libya were both by Obama, and on marching orders of UN instead of getting congressional approval as required by law. We were already at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and both of these situations are not going very well. I think Obama is intentionally thinning out our ability to support our country the way we need to because we are in all of these wars at 1 time. I think it is intentional, just like his economic policies that are leading this country down the path to socialism. To Blowfly: Our forefathers never intended our laws to interfere with our individual worship or interfere with our freedom of worship, only to protect us from a national religion. Progressives, athiests, vocal minority have attacked our freedom of worship and stifled our freedom of speech by telling us we can’t teach the Bible or Jewish views along with the Muslim and athiest views and theories of evolutions, etc. in our schools. Either teach all of it, or none of it imo. Also, no matter what you say, representatives use their own morals to base their decisions on. I won’t vote for someone just based on what they believe religion wise. Romney’s being a Morman would have no effect on my decision not to favor him for our GOP nomination. Rather, it would be his political stands, for example, on health care being mandatory…now, that bothers me because it eliminates my freedom of choice, and it forces me to purchase something which should not be coming from our federal government. Also, it is the progressives that have attempted to draft the less Bible-based churches to join them in pushing their parishioners to push the democratic agenda of forced distribution of wealth and using American tax money to pay for illegal immigrants needs like health care, rent, food stamps, etc. These false preachers that side with Obama try to change God’s word from “If a man doesn’t work, neither shall he eat” into “give everything you have to the government and let it redistribute it to whomever the government sees fit”. The Bible plainly tells us that there is a place reserved in hell for people who add or take away from God’s Word.

By Irishguy

June 14, 2011 6:41 PM | Link to this

Gee Mark, I guess you believe “under-vetted” means “haven’t found any dirt”. Do you seriously think Mrs Palin didn’t give birth to Trig? I believe the people of Tennessee convicted David Kernell, the son of a Democrat pol, for hacking Mrs Palin’s emails in 2008.

By Blowfly

June 14, 2011 6:12 PM | Link to this

SG - I think you first need to look up the definition of sarcasm, then read what I wrote. Let me try and express myself in a way you might understand. I find it offensive that republicans seem to insist that God is a republican and that they have perverted Christianity into a religion that adopts all of their personal prejudices, has overlooked all of their sins, while at the same time finding everything that the democrats do morally reprehensible. I think the Bible has a word for people like that - Pharisees. And Jesus didn’t think much of them. I find it absurd that because someone jumps up and down and claims they are a born again Christian that somehow that qualifies them to be president. I know plenty of Christians that couldn’t lead 3 ducks across the street. I can come up with a long list of Christians who have ruined this world, and I can up with long list who have done great things (hint, the latter list would not have many politicians on it,and the former list would). I don’t want to hear about a politician’s religion. I want to know if they are an idiot or not, what they are going to do about the world’s problems. They are not running for church president, pastor, or pope - they are running for president of a country with a wall of separation between church and state.

By Raoul

June 14, 2011 4:12 PM | Link to this

Nice dodge Mark. Try taking your own advice and google Sarah Palin. Let me know what you find.

By Mark from St Paul

June 14, 2011 1:01 PM | Link to this

Raoul, look up the word vetted in the dictionary. Palin was the most under-vetted vice presidential candidate since Thomas Eagleton. While she redacted a book’s worth of emails, she still let slip out the now incontrovertible fact that she was emailing political crap while allegedly giving birth to Trig. Pretty amazing stuff: emailing and tweeting while giving birth but not once mentioning the giving birth part. Palin hasn’t been vetted in any meaningful way. As for Bachmann, what’s to vet? She’s got a public record, tons of votes cast, and she speaks her real mind. What you see is what you’d get. The only Bachmann nondisclosure I’m aware of is her habit of glossing over how much her family farm takes in from the feds by way of ag subsidies. Otherwise she’s pretty straightforward, which is why her new campaign manager is trying to get the media to compare her and Sarah side by side. Palin is no Bachmann, and Bachmann is certainly no Palin.

By Raoul

June 14, 2011 10:12 AM | Link to this

Sarah Palin is now officially the most over-vetted politician in US history, and she hasn’t even announced plans to run. I predict Michelle Bachman will be the 2nd most vetted politician, and Obama will of course be way down the list. Still, it would be nice if a former classmate or 2 of Obama’s could come forward to share their memories of times spent studying at Harvard, eating pizzas and cramming for tests until late in the night. Just 1 would be nice. Somebody, anybody? Please? Will anybody that knows Barrack Obama please step forward? Mark, can you help out here? A little balance never hurt anything. Downsized? Vick? Anybody???

By vick

June 14, 2011 9:39 AM | Link to this

Squirrelly, in regard to Sarah Palin you said: “But she won’t put us in 4 wars (is it still 4, or is Obama eyeing another country to bomb?)” Quickly, can you name the 4 wars that you claim Obama put us in? I must have missed them?

By Mark from St Paul

June 14, 2011 9:32 AM | Link to this

Yes, after years of footdragging and redactions, there’s no smoking gun. There’s also not one single email from her entire first month in office. I don’t know what Sarah’s hiding in those emails, but she had a young man jailed for having “guessed” her password and taking a look at them.

By Squirrellygirl

June 14, 2011 8:37 AM | Link to this

To Blowfly: I find your words offensive, but I recognize your right to express what is on your heart, even if you have to be “sarcastic” to do it. Here’s the thing: What IF God is real. What IF God will judge all of your actions, your life, your hidden secrets? I don’t think God can get confused. His thoughts are higher than ours. I think you are under conviction, or else why the need for you to try to prove there is no God? Back to the subject. Sarah ain’t God, she isn’t perfect. But she won’t put us in 4 wars (is it still 4, or is Obama eyeing another country to bomb?). Her having the “Holy Ghost” won’t make her diss Israel and demand they give up their defensible borders, nor will she send billions of dollars to Brazil for oil drilling there. She won’t use tax payer money to travel around the world apologizing for America, but she will cut the deficit. Would it make you feel better if Daffy Duck or Alfred E. Newman ran with her as Vice Prez?

By OpenUrEyesVick!

June 14, 2011 8:31 AM | Link to this

Vick, Squirrelly here. To repeat what I said in my previous post (you must have missed it when you were speed reading it): “Is Sarah my first pick? No, but would I vote for her if she was the Republican nominee? Ya BETCHA!” The one thing that holds me back on Sarah is that she ran with McCain, and I don’t think McCain is a true Republican. I’m hoping Herman Cain will gain more popularity and possibly be our candidate for president. And another comment you made about her political beliefs/stands would be “incredible in that instance would be ‘hard to believe or impossible’…” Do you mean incredible like having your regulatory czar put a moratorium on oil drilling here and then providing billions of our U.S. dollars to Brazil for drilling/JOBS there so we can purchase THEIR oil…right in the middle of a recession when we lost all of those jobs and the oil companies left America to go to places where overregulation wouldn’t interfere with their jobs? Or impossible like spending over a trillion dollars on a hc bill that provides for abortions and death panels when they are supposed to be CUTTING the deficit? Or do you mean ridiculous like flying around the world and bowing to our enemies while apologizing for America’s colonialism? I think Sarah would make a fine president, because she wouldn’t do any of those things. But I would like to hear more about Herman Cain. Still, Daffy Duck would be a better president even if Daffy didn’t do a THING in the WH!

By Irishguy

June 13, 2011 10:47 PM | Link to this

Well after 2 or 3 days of shifting thru her 24,000 emails looks like Mark’s found the smoking gun. I’ll bet she even knew Trig was coming for 7 or 8 MONTHS!!! I just checked the websites of the NY Times, CBS, NBC, ABC and FNC no big “gotcha” in her emails today. Better luck tomorrow Mark. Downsized, I hope dementia doesn’t run in your family.

By Blowfly

June 13, 2011 4:40 PM | Link to this

I don’t think there’s a democrat on earth that does not want Sarah Palin to run. The only problem is that it would put God in such an awful position. He has already backing at least 3 republican candidates, and Sarah would be the 4th. I think God has some explaining to do. I think it’s just that he has been so busy figuring out who should win and lose all those baseball and basketball games, that he forgot he endorsed all those other candidates. It’s probably a relief that he doesn’t have to ever worry about endorsing a democrat. “Sarcasm off”

By downsized

June 13, 2011 3:46 PM | Link to this

According to my brother Sarah Palin is the smartest, most brilliant potential candidate Republicans have. Further, he believes she would be the best President in his life. He’s 60 years old. Dementia can strike at any age. Please support funding for all who suffer from mental challenges organic or otherwise. They need our help. As for Sarah Palin I’m rooting for her to enter the race so we can have a great nationwide conversation about our future. Her popularity indicates to me she represents the views of many citizens. Mainstream moderate Republicans, both of them, should give her a chance.

By Mark from St Paul

June 13, 2011 1:25 PM | Link to this

The latest in Palin email discovery is that she uploaded her “birth announcement letter” to her friends about Trig SIX WEEKS before Trig was born prematurely. The emails show that she aggressively used her state-paid staff to game online polls and write phony letters of comment. All of which is consistent with “by any means necessary” Christianity, in which you’re allowed to lie, cheat and steal if it means striking a blog against Satan/Democrats. Run, Sarah, run, because I for one would like to know more about your church, your secessionist friends, and your amazingly tangled personal relationships.

By vick

June 13, 2011 12:01 PM | Link to this

Squirrelly, I think many Democrats would be delighted if Palin was chosen as the GOP presidential candidate. But she would have to win their nomination first. You refer to her “opponent” and I’m assuming that you mean President Obama? I think you are putting the wagon in front of the horse. He would be her opponent if they ran against each other in an election. For Palin, he is merely a talking point and nothing more for the time being….

By Squirrellygirl

June 13, 2011 9:28 AM | Link to this

Vick, I mean, Vick—I know why the Democrats are so scared of Palin, make fun of her, try to ruin her reputation, move next to her to take pictures and try to find bad stuff on her and her kids, and write columns like this that will provoke more nasty comments. She speaks the truth, and it’s like turning a light on in darkness, all the darkness has to flee to the corners of the room, because there is no room for darkness in the light. You see, Palin can make comments that seem off sometimes, but still she speaks the truth when it comes to her opponent, his agenda, and she exposes this administration’s socialist agenda. With all of the rhetoric and oracles skills of Obama, what comes out of him is nonsensical empty rhetoric. Nothing of substance. As bad a Sarah is at expressing herself, or telling “stories”, her “having the Holy Ghost” is not going to make her diss Israel and cause WWIII (like Obama did). She won’t land us in 4 wars at once (like Obama has). She will cut the deficit where he refuses. She will work across party lines (where Obama has held closed door meetings, lacked transparency that he bragged he would have but didn’t). She appears to be an honest woman. Is she my first pick? No, but would I vote for her if she was the Republican nominee? Ya BETCHA! I’m hoping Herman Cain will gain more popularity.

By vick

June 12, 2011 11:53 PM | Link to this

Bob (I mean Janet)-if you had read the NY Times over the last week you would know that Congressman Weiner has been front page news every single day. He is a congressman from New York City, Bob (I mean Janet). That’s the city where the New York Times is-I’m sure you were aware of that…

By janet cooke

June 12, 2011 11:41 PM | Link to this

The big political news is WEINERGATE. You must not have read about it in the ny times.

By vick

June 12, 2011 11:19 PM | Link to this

Well, Ron…I am only referring to the potential for a “wild” nomination race. But in regard to Sarah Palin; if she does decide to run, I have little doubt that I’ll find some of her “policy positions, ideas or solutions” to be amazing and/or incredible-if and when that time comes….and my definition of incredible in that instance would be “hard to believe or impossible…..”

By Ron

June 12, 2011 10:17 PM | Link to this

Good enough Vick. I’ll take your word on the “wild” comment. It leaves me wondering though: what policy positions, ideas or solutions does Sarah Palin offer that you find amazing or incredible?

By vick

June 12, 2011 9:39 PM | Link to this

Dear Ron, I wrote: “I hope she runs. That could make for one wild Republican nominating contest.” My definition of the word “wild” in this instance is “amazing, incredible.” And I hope she runs.

By Ron

June 12, 2011 8:43 PM | Link to this

The man charged with providing insight into the world of books hopes for a “wild” nominating contest. Is that like Governors Gone Wild, instead of a serious political discourse aimed at actually solving the plethora of difficulties facing this Republic? And we wonder what’s wrong with this country. Answers, solutions, we don’t need no stinkin’ answers, just give us entertainment. Rome burns and we get bread and circus…

By Curious

June 12, 2011 10:46 AM | Link to this

Who is making more $$$, Sarah Palin and her book(s) and speeches, or her adversaries by writing about her life, trials and tribulations?

By See Sarah Run

June 12, 2011 10:14 AM | Link to this

Run Sarah Run, and run and run right out of current events. Lord knows she has plenty of space in history. Sarah has star celeb appeal but not political appeal. As a independent male I believe there are many well qualified females who could do an admirable job as President of the USA, but its not Sarah Palin.