President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RossValoryRocks]

Sure, you do. But any Democrats here are just parroting "what we're told to think" - right, Stu? Even though our opinions are far more divergent than yours. Whatever.

Really? You think I am in lock step with the GOP? Are you high?

1) I support the revocation of DODT
2) I fully support the rights of gays to marry.
3) I think abortion is not something the state has a right to restrict, even if I find it repugnant personally.
4) I think George Bush and the GOP controlled congress during a majority of his term forgot who they were and spent like, well, democrats.
5) While I think we were perfectly in our right to go into Iraq, not to do so with solid planning on how to get out was a disaster and Bush and the rest should be hed to task for that.

On those alone I am not a republican.

I am a Independent Conservative Libertarian. I don't parrot shit, but I fling the parrot shit back when it pops up in the divel posted by you liberal idealists who have no idea how the real world works.

[Rockindeano]

Sure, you do. But any Democrats here are just parroting "what we're told to think" - right, Stu? Even though our opinions are far more divergent than yours. Whatever.

Really? You think I am in lock step with the GOP? Are you high?

1) I support the revocation of DODT
2) I fully support the rights of gays to marry.
3) I think abortion is not something the state has a right to restrict, even if I find it repugnant personally.
4) I think George Bush and the GOP controlled congress during a majority of his term forgot who they were and spent like, well, democrats.
5) While I think we were perfectly in our right to go into Iraq, not to do so with solid planning on how to get out was a disaster and Bush and the rest should be held to task for that.

Jesus Fucking Christ. How is it I agree 80% with what you just posted. We weren't within "our right" to go to Iraq. LOL, you ask the president why we went there and he will tell you something completely different than what his vice president said. Too funny. Anyway, Iraq had zero to do with 9/11 but whatever.....The fact that democrats gave that idiot the power to send the military in was and is an embarrassment. However, I believe senator Barack Obama actually said "no."

[The_Noble_Cause]

just like the DEMS did to W...

I don't think that's accurate....
Not going to look it up, but I'm pretty sure Democrats voted for everything from Bush's tax cuts, to the Iraq War, to the Patriot Act, to Medicare prescription drug, to No Child Left Behind, and so on.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Bill Clinton said Saddam had WMD.
Al Gore said Saddam had WMD.
Kennedy said Saddam had WMD.
Kerry said Saddam had WMD.
Tenet said Saddam had WMD.
The Brits said Saddam had WMD.
For fucks sake even Saddam hisownbaddeadself said he had WMD.
Bush thought he had WMD and went to get them and they weren't there, had been moved or whatever, but he's the only one being called an idiot.

And the UN Inspectors on the ground said he didn't.
You're still defending the WMD story, after all the dirt has come out?
That's the equivalent of the lefties standing by their guy, and still defending LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin.
Give it a rest.

[The_Noble_Cause]

4) I think George Bush and the GOP controlled congress during a majority of his term forgot who they were and spent like, well, democrats.

Can you name a GOP President in the past 50 years who wasn't a spendthrift?
And when one is actually serious about bringing down the deficit, as George Bush Sr. was, and raised taxes, you guys throw him the hell out.

[7 Wishes]

UNEMLPLOYMENT

Conclusion
For the twenty years in which Republican Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 6.75%.

For the twenty years in which Democratic Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 5.1%.

TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.95%, 8.40%, 5.38%, 11.10%, 4.65%, 1.38%, 6.01% and 7.44% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.79%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.58%, 5.68%, 4.32% and 2.01% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 5.40%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.72%, 3.69%, 2.95%, 2.61%, 3.21%, 2.98%, 5.10% and 4.20% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 3.56%.

NON-DEFENSE FEDERAL SPENDING

Reagan 1982-1989

During the Reagan years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was and 7.70%, 6.71%, 4.34%, 11.08%, 3.37%, 0.70%, 7.20% and 8.52% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.20%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.54%, 10.19%, 3.07%, and 3.24% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 7.51%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 5.53%, 5.38%, 4.10%, 2.78%, 4.01%, 3.10%, 4.71% and 4.09% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 4.21%.
Conclusion
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%.

For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%. Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%.

POVERTY LEVELS

[Lula]

Bill Clinton said Saddam had WMD.
Al Gore said Saddam had WMD.
Kennedy said Saddam had WMD.
Kerry said Saddam had WMD.
Tenet said Saddam had WMD.
The Brits said Saddam had WMD.
For fucks sake even Saddam hisownbaddeadself said he had WMD.
Bush thought he had WMD and went to get them and they weren't there, had been moved or whatever, but he's the only one being called an idiot.

i love the "moved" theory

[RossValoryRocks]

4) I think George Bush and the GOP controlled congress during a majority of his term forgot who they were and spent like, well, democrats.

Can you name a GOP President in the past 50 years who wasn't a spendthrift?
And when one is actually serious about bringing down the deficit, as George Bush Sr. was, and raised taxes, you guys throw him the hell out.

I don't take Presidents as much to task as I do the Congress...they control the purse strings...from '94 to 2000 the Republicans in congress along with President Clinton worked hard to curb our spending, after 2000 the GOP members of Congress threw a six year party...then the dems came in an continued it, and Bush went sailing right along with them...then when the shit hits the fan they both stood there dem congress, rep President and pointed fingers at each other, if it wasn't so painful to us it would have been comical.

[RossValoryRocks]

UNEMLPLOYMENT

Conclusion
For the twenty years in which Republican Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 6.75%.

For the twenty years in which Democratic Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 5.1%.

TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.95%, 8.40%, 5.38%, 11.10%, 4.65%, 1.38%, 6.01% and 7.44% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.79%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.58%, 5.68%, 4.32% and 2.01% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 5.40%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.72%, 3.69%, 2.95%, 2.61%, 3.21%, 2.98%, 5.10% and 4.20% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 3.56%.

NON-DEFENSE FEDERAL SPENDING

Reagan 1982-1989

During the Reagan years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was and 7.70%, 6.71%, 4.34%, 11.08%, 3.37%, 0.70%, 7.20% and 8.52% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.20%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.54%, 10.19%, 3.07%, and 3.24% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 7.51%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 5.53%, 5.38%, 4.10%, 2.78%, 4.01%, 3.10%, 4.71% and 4.09% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 4.21%.
Conclusion
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%.

For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%. Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%.

POVERTY LEVELS

Link your source page please? Take a lesson from FF, he always (or almost always) links the original article. No source = no facts, bad source (as in PARTISAN) = no facts.

[Saint John]

Bill Clinton said Saddam had WMD.
Al Gore said Saddam had WMD.
Kennedy said Saddam had WMD.
Kerry said Saddam had WMD.
Tenet said Saddam had WMD.
The Brits said Saddam had WMD.
For fucks sake even Saddam hisownbaddeadself said he had WMD.
Bush thought he had WMD and went to get them and they weren't there, had been moved or whatever, but he's the only one being called an idiot.

i love the "moved" theory

Yeah that one was a hoot wasn't it? Of course conveniently forgotten is the USED THEORY!!


Warning! True life at link...

http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

That was hard to look at.

[7 Wishes]

Here's one.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Notice how the unemployment rate ALWAYS rises under Republican Administrations.

Plenty more where this came from, fellas.

Wait...I'm sure the government cooked the data to make the GOP look bad.

[JrnyScarab]

4) I think George Bush and the GOP controlled congress during a majority of his term forgot who they were and spent like, well, democrats.

Can you name a GOP President in the past 50 years who wasn't a spendthrift?
And when one is actually serious about bringing down the deficit, as George Bush Sr. was, and raised taxes, you guys throw him the hell out.

I don't take Presidents as much to task as I do the Congress...they control the purse strings...from '94 to 2000 the Republicans in congress along with President Clinton worked hard to curb our spending, after 2000 the GOP members of Congress threw a six year party...then the dems came in an continued it, and Bush went sailing right along with them...then when the shit hits the fan they both stood there dem congress, rep President and pointed fingers at each other, if it wasn't so painful to us it would have been comical.

Man, you got that wrong. Not one Republican in Congress voted for Clinton's deficit reduction plan put forth in 1993.

"In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a half-trillion deficit reduction package, one that included a boost in upper income tax rates to 39.6%. When Clinton's 1993 economic program scraped by without capturing the support of even one GOP lawmaker, the New York Times remarked:

Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party."


So the party that voted no for the plan when they didn't control the House magically changed their spots to help after that? That's because they didn't want to be blamed for increasing the deficit once THEY were in power.

[7 Wishes]

You guys have compassion fatigue for your fellow countrymen...atrocities are committed throughout the world by ruthless dictators every day...yet only Saddam's in Iraq ever show up on your radar.

[treetopovskaya]

You guys have compassion fatigue for your fellow countrymen...atrocities are committed throughout the world by ruthless dictators every day...yet only Saddam's in Iraq ever show up on your radar.

that's bs.

[Rockindeano]

You guys have compassion fatigue for your fellow countrymen...atrocities are committed throughout the world by ruthless dictators every day...yet only Saddam's in Iraq ever show up on your radar.

that's bs.

Maybe it is Wendy. You have to admit Saddam was personal with W..He did try to kill Bush 41.

[RedWingFan]

The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

Back away from the crackpipe Stuey. I haven't laughed out loud like this in a long time. I woke Wyatt up from a deep slumber.

Yeah, I'm sure if I told you in early December that Republicans would take a senate seat in Mass. you would have laughed too huh?

Bottom line is this! Democrats are going to take a MONUMENTAL ass beating come November. Working Americans had a close call and have been awakened, the feds were sooo close to coming in and taking their private health insurance away. That's why republicans won in NJ and Mass. The only question now is will they be smart enough to oppose liberalism beyond this election cycle and continue to see the wolf in sheeps clothing?
Remember how you libs always cried how Bush was just creating more terrorists by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
You could say Obama and the democrats running congress have created patriotic, capitalist, conservative voters by their assault on working Americans over the past year. They faught back in NJ and Mass. November it's nationwide baby!

I'm taking election night off work just so I can watch!

[conversationpc]

The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

Back away from the crackpipe Stuey. I haven't laughed out loud like this in a long time. I woke Wyatt up from a deep slumber.

Yeah, I'm sure if I told you in early December that Republicans would take a senate seat in Mass. you would have laughed too huh?

Bottom line is this! Democrats are going to take a MONUMENTAL ass beating come November. Working Americans had a close call and have been awakened, the feds were sooo close to coming in and taking their private health insurance away. That's why republicans won in NJ and Mass. The only question now is will they be smart enough to oppose liberalism beyond this election cycle and continue to see the wolf in sheeps clothing?
Remember how you libs always cried how Bush was just creating more terrorists by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
You could say Obama and the democrats running congress have created patriotic, capitalist, conservative voters by their assault on working Americans over the past year. They faught back in NJ and Mass. November it's nationwide baby!

I'm taking election night off work just so I can watch!

I've heard multiple people say this and it's certainly a real possibility. Anyone that thinks it's preposterous hasn't been paying much attention to politics over the last few months, i.e., Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc.

[conversationpc]

Sure, you do. But any Democrats here are just parroting "what we're told to think" - right, Stu? Even though our opinions are far more divergent than yours. Whatever.

Really? You think I am in lock step with the GOP? Are you high?

1) I support the revocation of DODT
2) I fully support the rights of gays to marry.
3) I think abortion is not something the state has a right to restrict, even if I find it repugnant personally.
4) I think George Bush and the GOP controlled congress during a majority of his term forgot who they were and spent like, well, democrats.
5) While I think we were perfectly in our right to go into Iraq, not to do so with solid planning on how to get out was a disaster and Bush and the rest should be hed to task for that.

On those alone I am not a republican.

I am a Independent Conservative Libertarian. I don't parrot shit, but I fling the parrot shit back when it pops up in the divel posted by you liberal idealists who have no idea how the real world works.

I don't agree with every one of those points but I would add that the Patriot Act is/was a disaster.

[Ehwmatt]

Sure, you do. But any Democrats here are just parroting "what we're told to think" - right, Stu? Even though our opinions are far more divergent than yours. Whatever.

Really? You think I am in lock step with the GOP? Are you high?

1) I support the revocation of DODT
2) I fully support the rights of gays to marry.
3) I think abortion is not something the state has a right to restrict, even if I find it repugnant personally.
4) I think George Bush and the GOP controlled congress during a majority of his term forgot who they were and spent like, well, democrats.
5) While I think we were perfectly in our right to go into Iraq, not to do so with solid planning on how to get out was a disaster and Bush and the rest should be hed to task for that.

On those alone I am not a republican.

I am a Independent Conservative Libertarian. I don't parrot shit, but I fling the parrot shit back when it pops up in the divel posted by you liberal idealists who have no idea how the real world works.

I don't agree with every one of those points but I would add that the Patriot Act is/was a disaster.

It's just likely to be the short-cycled wheel of American politics coming full circle once again. Times go bad under D/R, usher D/R in with a mandate, times don't improve, change to the other, they all fleece us and then breed mindless party line towers, then wash/rinse/repeat.

[Lula]

Bill Clinton said Saddam had WMD.
Al Gore said Saddam had WMD.
Kennedy said Saddam had WMD.
Kerry said Saddam had WMD.
Tenet said Saddam had WMD.
The Brits said Saddam had WMD.
For fucks sake even Saddam hisownbaddeadself said he had WMD.
Bush thought he had WMD and went to get them and they weren't there, had been moved or whatever, but he's the only one being called an idiot.

i love the "moved" theory

Yeah that one was a hoot wasn't it? Of course conveniently forgotten is the USED THEORY!!


Warning! True life at link...

http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

it would have been great had we done something at the time. we backed iraq when they slayed iranians. the mass graves of iraqis, the chemical warfare, the suffering... we turned a blind eye. can't use this as an excuse for the wrong doing, the invasion, the shock and awe that bush delivered. papa bush asked the iraqi people to rise up against their dictator and then abandoned them, leaving them to pay the ultimate price for their courage

[donnaplease]

it would have been great had we done something at the time. we backed iraq when they slayed iranians. the mass graves of iraqis, the chemical warfare, the suffering... we turned a blind eye. can't use this as an excuse for the wrong doing, the invasion, the shock and awe that bush delivered. papa bush asked the iraqi people to rise up against their dictator and then abandoned them, leaving them to pay the ultimate price for their courage

I think it must be dreadfully difficult to decide which world problems to intervene (I mean that for all leaders), especially when you're putting the lives of our citizens in jeopardy. As much as people like to suggest otherwise, I don't personally think GWB had any previously held grudges that he was acting upon, but more likely the fear that some other tragedy would fall upon us. Kinda like any parent would do for their kids, it's possibly a "better safe than sorry" mentality. Was it the wrong one? Possibly. I guess that depends on which side of the "Bush war" you find yourself on. There have been many lives lost (both allied troops and Iraqi), but without a crystal ball we have no idea what would've happened without the invasion.

Let me ask a question, though, Lu. Regarding your last statement about 'Papa Bush', if he had not of 'abandoned them' and had gone into Iraq in 1991 during the first gulf war, do you think he would've been perceived the same way as 'baby Bush' ( ) by his detractors? There are parallels there, don'tcha think?

[The_Noble_Cause]

As much as people like to suggest otherwise, I don't personally think GWB had any previously held grudges that he was acting upon, but more likely the fear that some other tragedy would fall upon us.

You'd have a point...if invading Iraq wasn't already in the works long prior to 9-11.
Some, like FF and RedWing, may be perfectly ok with that, but that’s not how the war was sold.
Force was also to be a "last resort", according to W.
That turned out to be a lie.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 929604.ece
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... eill_says/

Kinda like any parent would do for their kids, it's possibly a "better safe than sorry" mentality.

If Bush really wanted to ensure that we were safe, why did he pull out the weapons inspectors who were telling him they weren’t finding anything?
Seems sensible to me to go with weapons inspectors, rather than wasting trillions in blood and treasure, right?

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases ... blix.shtml

There are parallels there, don'tcha think?

Barely.
Bush Sr. believed in diplomacy and assembled one of the broadest international coalitions in recent history to expel Saddam.
He had world opinion and international might on his side.
Bush jr., on the other hand, had the Republic of Palau, and the coalition of the willing.
Bush Sr. also had the prima facie aggressive act of Saddam annexing his neighbor.
Bush jr., meanwhile, had a bunch of WMD mushroom cloud innuendo, some of which was solicited by torture, and NOT backed up by the weapons inspectors.

[RossValoryRocks]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.

What's your point?
Regime change doesn't automatically = invasion.
For Clinton, that meant sanctions and bombings.

Funny, after being repeatedly told not to mention George W. Bush when discussing Obama's inherited troubles, you guys STILL can't help but mention Bill Clinton every time George W. Bush's name comes up.
Typical GOP hypocrisy.

Could you be a larger idiot??? Probably not.

How in the fuck is he supposed to give supporting evidence that regime change was the policy of the US Government without mentioning Clinton, who signed the fucking thing into law???

As usual, you are nothing but a rable rousing douche, and COMPLETELY unobjective. You hate the GOP, we get that, hell most of us here aren't fans of the GOP either. But your marginal arguments presented to show the conservatives here as elephant riding, card carrying republicans is getting really fucking old.

You need to use more than two brain cells of that prodigious cerebrum of yours and actually analyze what people are saying rather than going off half cocked all the time about the evil of the GOP members here, considering most of the conservatives here AREN'T registered republicans. I would bet the same cannot be said for most of the libs here and the democratic party.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You'd have a point...if invading Iraq wasn't already in the works long prior to 9-11.
Some, like FF and RedWing, may be perfectly ok with that, but that’s not how the war was sold.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.

Funny, after being repeatedly told not to mention George W. Bush when discussing Obama's inherited troubles, you guys STILL can't help but mention Bill Clinton every time George W. Bush's name comes up. LOL.

I never denied that neocons lobbied the Clinton administration to take a hard-line stance against Iraq, (many of the same neocon warhawks would end up calling the shots in the Bush White House).
But presidents are lobbied by external interest groups ALL THE TIME.
What matters is, how do they react, and do they give in?
For Clinton, “regime change” meant sanctions and bombings, not a pre-emptive trillion dollar war.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Could you be a larger idiot??? Probably not.
How in the fuck is he supposed to give supporting evidence that regime change was the policy of the US Government without mentioning Clinton, who signed the fucking thing into law???

Regime change is not the same thing as going to war.
Just because a contingency invasion plan exists in a Pentagon drawer somewhere, doesn’t mean it will be acted upon.

As usual, you are nothing but a rable rousing douche, and COMPLETELY unobjective. You hate the GOP, we get that, hell most of us here aren't fans of the GOP either. But your marginal arguments presented to show the conservatives here as elephant riding, card carrying republicans is getting really fucking old.

FF toes the party line more than anyone here, I’ll admit that.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the Gulf War vs. Iraqi Freedom

You need to use more than two brain cells of that prodigious cerebrum of yours and actually analyze what people are saying rather than going off half cocked all the time about the evil of the GOP members here, considering most of the conservatives here AREN'T registered republicans. I would bet the same cannot be said for most of the libs here and the democratic party.

I don’t know what you’re talking about, Stu.
I respectfully replied to the points Donna raised.
I hope she’ll respond back.
It sounds to me like you’re still suffering from some buyer’s remorse over George W. Bush, and I hit a sore spot.
It’s ok.
He fucked over alot of people.

[Lula]

Let me ask a question, though, Lu. Regarding your last statement about 'Papa Bush', if he had not of 'abandoned them' and had gone into Iraq in 1991 during the first gulf war, do you think he would've been perceived the same way as 'baby Bush' ( ) by his detractors? There are parallels there, don'tcha think?

when papa bush had his war he did it with an international coalition through diplomacy, even though it might have been about the oil fields in kuwait... i do not see any parallels. the sudden withdrawal of support for the people rising up against saddam was a tragedy and could very well be the reason the population harbors resentment towards our country this time around. it's safe to say i'm not a big supporter of war and the loss of life.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Unbelievable.
Minutes after her Tea Party speech attacking Obama’s teleprompter use, Palin was caught using crib notes on her hand to BS her way through a Q & A session.
Is this really the best the GOP has to offer?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-si ... 52458.html

[The_Noble_Cause]

I knew someone would harp on this. WEAK WEAK WEAK! Almost all speakers use notes of some sort. 3 talking points on her hand in no way equals The Wons use of prepared remarks being read every damn line off of the telepromter. Dude looks like he's watching a tennis match when he speaks.

Get the hell out of here....
Relying on bullet points on your hand is pure junior high stuff.
In all my years of following politics, this is a new low.
As for the Obama comparison, I saw him go head-to-head with the House Republicans just the other day, no notes, just intellect, and he did quite well.

[gr8dane]

Energy, Tax Cuts, Lift American Spirit.

That is an awful lot to have to remember.
I would have to write that down as well.

[RossValoryRocks]

Unbelievable.
Minutes after her Tea Party speech attacking Obama’s teleprompter use, Palin was caught using crib notes on her hand to BS her way through a Q & A session.
Is this really the best the GOP has to offer?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-si ... 52458.html

Geezus...the Huffington Post??? Bwahhahaha...you discredit yourself right there...biased...partisan...and has been caught out at manipulating things...just a tad above supermarket tabloids...Now if there is a cooborating story from AP or Reuters? Yes I searched, nothing from objective media at all. Every site I see that has it is some left wing nut house...make you wonder.

Man you libs and your lib sources...the same reason I will never use a Fox News commentator such as Hannity, as a source, unless the story is also being ran by AP or something...biased sources are not reliable, and the Huffington Post is EVERY bit as bad as Fox's 8:00 to 11:00 commentators for the bias and you know it.

NOW if you want to bash Palin for something, how about her letting Rush off the hook about using retard, while hopping all over Dead Fish??? I hate that kind of thing personally...and just shows me Palin is just another politician, and no more deserving of praise than any of the rest of them.