*Menu
Search
Submit
Mountain Home News
*
Shots from Bazookaman
Michael Bradbury
Recent posts
Archives

Gotta find SOMETHING!

Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008, at 2:59 PM

With 29 hits on the last blog entry, I'm gonna enter a new blog, if for no other reason, because it's taking forever it seems, to scan the last one!!

See knucklehead Conan last night? How about the Statesman this morning? They're really going after Palin.

When Obama excluded Hillary from any portion of his "dream", he stepped on himself with track shoes. The Libs are in a panic now with Palin, and it is IMPERATIVE that they find SOMETHING on her of some sort of credibility.

Charles Gibson, try as he did, could not shake her up. Never once did she break eye contact with that agenda-driven lefty. She's gonna be tough and they know it.

Barbra Streisand, the lib queen of Hollywood, held a fundraiser for Obama at $28,000 per plate...........I wonder if that came with fries......

Joe Biden talks about giving more and more. Good point. He himself has donated just over $3600 to charities............of course, he's made over 2.1 million. Just yesterday, Joe Biden said that "raising taxes is patriotic"...............raising taxes is just plain stupid.

Barack has a brother or cousin living in a hut in Africa, that he has NEVER helped. The Dems are only "generous" with OUR money.

Corporate America.........you know, the ones who EMPLOY people..........already pay 70% of the tax load. The Democrats want to tax them even more, then point fingers in every direction but their own, when these companies have to scale back, causing an unemployment rise.

Back to Palin, though. As a Governor, she's had more responsibility than Obama has ever had, but Kevin Richert and his "Boise Bunch" will write and support every anti-Palin piece of literature that comes his way. Only as a "token" does the Statesman occasionally print any PRO Republican letters. That way they can claim they aren't really biased.

This is coordinative with ALL major newspapers. If Sarah Palin throws anything in her trashcan without bagging it up first, the L.A. Times will have a reporter hiding in her backyard to see it, then report that she is damaging the environment. They are THAT desperate (and probably have CAUSE to be).

AIG rescue............the biggest issue on the table. McCain said he didn't like it but understood the need. Obama and Biden both tap-danced that they didn't have all the facts to make a judgement. As President, you can't vote "present", as you did so often in the Senate. You HAVE to make decisions, if you're gonna be #1. You really do. Smart move on Obama's part, though. After all, you really can't get yourself into a crack, if you didn't really say anything, eh?......................Just smile, kiss a few babies and everyone will continue to think you're the "second coming."

That's why Obama's inexperience is NOT on the same scale with Palin's. Palin isn't running for the MAIN seat. He IS.

The commander of an aircraft carrier is the #1 man on that ship. His XO (Executive Officer) is #2. The "X.O." works BEHIND the #1, watching, learning and noting what to do and what not to do, in case he ever HAS to take over, or some future opportunity exists. HIS on-the-job training doesn't require any major decisions while he's learning.

If Obama HAS to be on the ticket, HE should be #2, not #1.

Barack Obama might be ready to LEARN, but certainly not ready to LEAD. Sarah Palin is NOT LOOKING to lead at this early point...only to serve, learn and be ready in case. She's not too likely to screw anything up while she's learning.

Experience-wise, at THIS point, she is sufficiently qualified to be the VICE President.

Now........ExIntern or anyone else out there..........

Experience-wise, at THIS point, what qualifies Obama to be PRESIDENT?

Barack Obama reminds me of a turtle sitting atop a fencepost:

1. You know he didn't get up there by himself

2. He doesn't belong there

3. He doesn't know what to do while he's up there

4. You wonder what dummy put him up there in the first place.

Comments
View 9 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

  • Colorful Mike and it made me smile! What is he doing on top of that fence post and amen to #4! It is easy to "help" when it is tax payer dollars that do it. Taxes patriotic! That is a load! I wonder who wrote that one for him.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Thu, Sep 18, 2008, at 3:32 PM

  • An 'independent' observer - There has always been some nastiness in presidential elections, but since Palin has broke into the scene, the comments have gotten way out of control, mainly, from what I have seen from the Democrats, or those that are opposed to the Republican ticket.

    Beside that crazy 'The View" with Whoopi asking McCain if she is going to be a slave again to McCain (I didn't know she was a slave before?), and Lindsay Lohan, Pam Anderson, etc trying to give me advise on who I should vote for, (oh pleeeez) the local blogs are even worse. Calling Palin a crappy mom and a redneck slut and more. I have never seen comments just rip on stuff that has really nothing to do w/the election w/such absolute malice.

    I have to say, I respect ExInternMike for a gentlemanly-like debate here. But he is quickly becoming a minority. Honestly, looking at a lot of these people who are for Obama who display such viciousness, I am seriously being turned off by Obama supporters. WTH happened to the Dems? What kind of people relate and side with what this party is becoming? This is not the blue collar party it used to be.

    I'm not saying the Repubs are perfect, but Palin bashing has moved the nastiness up quite a few notches. And w/Biden saying taxes are patriotic? Dude is smoking crack - why would you even say that? Yeah, I have a problem with the gov't taking more of my money and giving it to those they say need it more than I. If that makes me (prior service) unpatriotic, so be it.

    You think you couldn't even write this stuff this crazy, no????

    It looks like time for Atlas to Shrug for sure.

    -- Posted by froggy on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 12:22 AM

  • I've already rattled off Obama's experience twice, once without mention of his community organizing and once referring to the actual details of what he accomplished. I've listed past candidates whose resumes make the offices held by Obama or Palin look titanic. Some won and some didn't, some were good and some were bad, some we'd probably disagree on. The most notable being Abraham Lincoln - one term in the U.S. House and time as a state senator - and one I didn't mention being George H.W. Bush.

    I've said before my choice is not about experience or the candidate's resume. I've said I don't object to Sarah Palin because she's "only" been mayor and governor. I'm fine with elected a rural mayor and governor serving a first term as vice-president or even president if I agree with him or her. I object to her because of what she did as an executive - she left Wasilla $20 to $22 million in debt and under her leadership rape victims had to pay for their own rape kits, among other things. And because of the policies she and her running mate support.

    There are a number of issues I disagree with Obama and Joe Biden on, but on the five issues I think are most important - getting out of Iraq, shifting the tax burden off the middle-class, not blindly cheerleading every anti-labor trade deal that comes along (and it pains me greatly Bill Clinton's capitulation on that has left such being about the best I can hope for), going after the Al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan, regulating the markets to protect the financial security of the public instead of chalking it all up to being "cyclical," the Obama-Biden platform is closer to where I am than McCain-Palin.

    As far as the nastiness goes, it's always been and always will be nasty. That's just human nature. Aaaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton - it doesn't get much nastier than that.

    -- Posted by ExInternMike on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 1:33 AM

  • The corporations don't have to "scale back" and lay people off, they can cut CEO pay - in 1982 the average CEO earnings were 42 times greater than the earnings of the average non-management worker. In 2004, It had risen to 431 times greater. They can pay out less in stock dividends - investors don't work for their money, labor does. The American work force gets more and more productive and sees a smaller and smaller fraction of the spoils. It's just another type of income redistribution, orchestrated by the real elitists on Wall Street and in management rather than a politburo.

    If workers, who are also consumers, are given the tax cuts instead of corporations, investors, and heirs and heiresses, they have more money to spend on the services and goods corporations provide and investors have invested into - under demand-side economics, everybody wins. Under supply-side economics we're told the cuts - Bush early in his first term, Reagan, I'm pretty sure Clinton rolled over for a capital gains cut in 1997 - will trickle down - I haven't seen it, my friends and family don't see it, I think Wall Street made off with the money before it could trickle anywhere. But here we go again with McCain pushing cuts to corporate tax rates, elimination of the AMT and no increases anywhere.

    One more thing - is the View the only program TVs in Mountain Home get any more? It comes up on this blog way more often than it does in my offline life.

    -- Posted by ExInternMike on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 2:10 AM

  • Just because you will never have what it takes to be the CEO of a large corporation doesnt mean the rest of us should pay for it. That statement smacks of wealth distribution which is a Communist thought process!

    -- Posted by FlagshipOne on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 8:48 AM

  • Well put FlagshipOne. Pay your own way. I'm not rich and probably never will be, but the rich shouldn't have to pay my way. They probably use less of our resources, but they are forced to pay more than their share.

    -- Posted by IdahoBorn on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 12:46 PM

  • Their "share?" their share will come when they WORK for their money - until then pay the real workers and cut the salaries for the big talkers who have NO OTHER SKILLS than bossing the REAL workers around and loan-sharking.

    And you're right I don't have "what it takes" to be a CEO - I love my country too much to outsource jobs to Guatemala and I'm not old AMC chairman George Romney's brat or the second cousin of the President - that's how the rich get ahead in life, nepotism and cronyism, while it's the working- and middle-classes that make the actual contributions to society.

    The rich aren't paying my way, they're skimming the money WE EARN with our labor off the top - income redistribution in this country exists, alright. It just benefits those least entitled.

    -- Posted by ExInternMike on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 2:50 PM

  • Great post but do not forget Chris Dodd and Mr Obama where #1 and #2 recievers of money from Leman Brothers. I believe it was in the millions.

    Hmmm! Who's for change again? No one in our household watches Whoopi girl,Walters or any of the so called stars in Hollywood. Before I believe anything out of Hollywood they should clean up there OWN back yard before they start digging in some one elses.

    -- Posted by Momof 2graduates on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 2:56 PM

  • Oops I stand corrected it was not Leman Brothers it was Fannie Mae Fredie Mac they recieved all this money from.

    -- Posted by Momof 2graduates on Fri, Sep 19, 2008, at 3:49 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: