• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

New Palin Video

Could you please site your source? According to Enzine, the forclosure rate in 2006 was 0.58%, in 2007 it was 1.0% and willl be greater during 2008. According to the Washington Post, the vast majority of forclosures were/are on home loans that were made in 2005 and 2006.


Cheers,

Doug

Foreclosure don't happen overnight (after the loan is made) and are usually delayed until the teaser initial rates go up. The Democrats did not take over until January 2007 by which time, "the vast majority of foreclosures were/are on home loans that were" already made. Thanks for making my point!

Regards,

Danny
 
Last edited:
The relevancy lies in the details you glossed over. The Democratic majority, especially in the Senate, exists by the slimmest of margins: 51:49. Really it's 51:50, the presumption being that the VP casts the tie breaking vote. Joe Liebermann is an Independent and up till now (and on the surface) is part of the "Democratic" majority, but in reality, he is a "ronin".

Ever wonder why Lieberman, a reject of the Democrats in his own state and a McCain buddy, continues to caucas with the Democrats? He is the deciding vote if any issue falls along party lines (seems like almost always), so he enjoys far more power than if he were still a purely Democratic Senator. With this tenuous simple majority, how far do you think the Democrats can go towards a 2/3 majority to over-ride a guaranteed Bush veto? Contrast this to the Bill Frist led Senate in 2005-2007 (55:45 Republican Senate, Republican House and President) which tried to apply cloture against the Senate Democrats. Why would they need to have done that if they had both Congress and the Presidency? I'm sure if a Democratic House and Senate had a veto-proof majority,(without relying on Joe Liberman's vote), things would be a lot different.

The vast majority of the bad loans that are going into or have foreclosed were made during the years that the Republicans had control of both Congress and the Presidency ("remember the ownership society"?). Blaming the current Democratic congress without looking back to 2003-2005 is being very near-sighted. Remember Terry Schiavo? That was the last time Congress worked into the wee hours and Bush cut short his vacation. Seems so silly now doesn't it? Forgive this over-simplification: The Democratic congress is trying to wipe the ass of the previous Republican congress with tissue paper that could tear at any moment along the "Joe Lieberman" perforated line.

Regards,

Danny

How they can be without blame?
You believe they were helpless and without the ability to make change?
That all these democrat controlled state governments were unable to make change? That it is just the republicans that are greedy and stupid?

My feeling is that both parties are full of baloney and serve nothing but themselves and their friends. They will do anything, say anything and do nothing if need be to get themselves elected and to keep in office. They feather their own nests and want the books to paint them sweet.

There aren't two parties. Just one big party and we pay for the party with the sweat of our brow and the blood of our sons. Our politicians serve themselves first.
 
Foreclosure don't happen overnight (after the loan is made) and are usually delayed until the teaser initial rates go up. The Democrats did not take over until January 2007 by which time, "the vast majority of foreclosures were/are on home loans that were" already made. Thanks for making my point!

Regards,

Danny

I agree. Forclosures do not happen overnight. They usually happen within the first two years as I pointed out. Again, I will ask for your source of information.

I find it unfortunate that you continue to spout comments as if they are facts. You did this again with your comments regarding Social Security.

I don't have a dog in this fight. However, I would expect that people making their point(s) be factual when presenting their arguments regardless of who they support.

Cheers,

Doug
 
I agree. Forclosures do not happen overnight. They usually happen within the first two years as I pointed out. Again, I will ask for your source of information.

I find it unfortunate that you continue to spout comments as if they are facts. You did this again with your comments regarding Social Security.

I don't have a dog in this fight. However, I would expect that people making their point(s) be factual when presenting their arguments regardless of who they support.

Cheers,

Doug

"The vast majority of the bad loans that are going into or have foreclosed were made during the years that the Republicans had control of both Congress and the Presidency ("remember the ownership society"?)"
As I said, you've already made my point for me..unless your own comments aren't rooted in fact. The housing bubble did start around 2003, if I remember correctly. Sighting sources is a valid request unless it is common knowledge, then your request simply becomes an attempt to demean its validity. Sorry, but thanks again for your help. Which one is your dog?

Regards,

Danny
 
"The vast majority of the bad loans that are going into or have foreclosed were made during the years that the Republicans had control of both Congress and the Presidency ("remember the ownership society"?)"
As I said, you've already made my point for me..unless your own comments aren't rooted in fact. The housing bubble did start around 2003, if I remember correctly. Sighting sources is a valid request unless it is common knowledge, then your request simply becomes an attempt to demean its validity. Sorry, but thanks again for your help. Which one is your dog?

Regards,

Danny


First of all, I am not a registered voter. Consequently I do not have a "dog."

When the "bubble" started is one thing. When it burst is another. The record number of forclosures didn't start in 2003. It set a record in 2008, and most forclosures are for mortgages less than two years old.

Ownership Society:
The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, 2003 in Kennesaw, Georgia) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals (Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, Bush OKs Funding Bill for Fiscal '03, Feb 21, 2003 Scott Lindlaw). From 2004 Bush supporters described the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms, including specific policy proposals concerning medicine, education and savings.

The idea that the welfare of individuals is directly related to their ability to control their own lives and wealth, rather than relying on government transfer payments, is a longstanding one, particularly in British conservatism.

In a modern form its implementation was developed as a main plank of Thatcherism, and is traced back to David Howell, before 1970, with help from the phrase-maker Peter Drucker

Cheers,
 
First of all, I am not a registered voter. Consequently I do not have a "dog."

When the "bubble" started is one thing. When it burst is another. The record number of forclosures didn't start in 2003. It set a record in 2008, and most forclosures are for mortgages less than two years old.

Ownership Society:
The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, 2003 in Kennesaw, Georgia) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals (Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, Bush OKs Funding Bill for Fiscal '03, Feb 21, 2003 Scott Lindlaw). From 2004 Bush supporters described the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms, including specific policy proposals concerning medicine, education and savings.

The idea that the welfare of individuals is directly related to their ability to control their own lives and wealth, rather than relying on government transfer payments, is a longstanding one, particularly in British conservatism.

In a modern form its implementation was developed as a main plank of Thatcherism, and is traced back to David Howell, before 1970, with help from the phrase-maker Peter Drucker

Cheers,

Thanks again for making my point. Not-registered? If it smells like it, sounds like it...

Regards,

Danny
 
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you

WTF? Apparently I know more about McCains experience than his VP? No wonder they don't let her talk to the media. Shes got a lot more cramming to do before the debates.
 
WTF? Apparently I know more about McCains experience than his VP? No wonder they don't let her talk to the media. Shes got a lot more cramming to do before the debates.

Well she could always respond with how McCain was most influenced as a child when in 1929, president FDR went on television to speak to America during the crash.
 
You don't need to be with Obama to support Obama. You're ideal candidate have absolutely no shot what so ever, therefore, if you attack the person who you don't like, you automatically shift your support towards the one you don't care or talk about.

No.
 
Again, another lying, distorted liberal approach to discredit their opponent.

Did you get paid by the Obama campaign?

http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/11/the_palin_rape_kit_myth

Vance do not seem to have read comprehension skills.


The people the quotes are from:

former Alaskan Governor Knowles and Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein

Knowles told reporters, “There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla, and the -- the original police chief had been fired by Mayor Palin, and her replacement for that police chief was protesting it, and even when I signed the bill.”

The clarification:

Knowles was the former Democratic governor of Alaska. After it was discovered that Wasilla was charging to the rape victim's insurance company (if they had it) the rape kit cost, he (Knowles) signed a bill to outlaw the practice.

and her replacement for that police chief was protesting it, and even when I signed the bill.

Weinstein added, “Wasilla under Sarah Palin's administration chose to charge sexual assault victims for the forensic kits, and that's the choice they made. They easily could have made the other choice.”

It's a matter of public record she signed the budget as Major. Either she didn't read the budger fully or didn't care or did it for religious reasons. At least the religious reason gives her some leg to stand on.


The Wasilla local paper with the report (from 2000).....read the comments many are local...some from her children (maybe)....decide for yourself.

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
 
Vance do not seem to have read comprehension skills.


The people the quotes are from:

former Alaskan Governor Knowles and Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein

Knowles told reporters, “There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla, and the -- the original police chief had been fired by Mayor Palin, and her replacement for that police chief was protesting it, and even when I signed the bill.”

The clarification:

Knowles was the former Democratic governor of Alaska. After it was discovered that Wasilla was charging to the rape victim's insurance company (if they had it) the rape kit cost, he (Knowles) signed a bill to outlaw the practice.

and her replacement for that police chief was protesting it, and even when I signed the bill.

Weinstein added, “Wasilla under Sarah Palin's administration chose to charge sexual assault victims for the forensic kits, and that's the choice they made. They easily could have made the other choice.”

It's a matter of public record she signed the budget as Major. Either she didn't read the budger fully or didn't care or did it for religious reasons. At least the religious reason gives her some leg to stand on.


The Wasilla local paper with the report (from 2000).....read the comments many are local...some from her children (maybe)....decide for yourself.

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

Whats wrong with charging the insurance company? Someone has to pay for it and that's what medical insurance is there for, to pay for medical related issues.
 
Whats wrong with charging the insurance company? Someone has to pay for it and that's what medical insurance is there for, to pay for medical related issues.

Personally, this isn't a big deal for me, although one can infer that Palin's rigid religious beliefs can appear unfair/uncompassionate. There is a deductible involved with most insurances, which the victim would have to pay if the test costs came through first. In any case, the victim is stuck for a deductible that resluted from a crime not of her own chooosing.

Regards,

Danny
 
Vance, please take the time to defend the absence of Palin after the debate.

She's supposed to be 2nd in command...she can't comment? What are they afraid of?

How can you possibly consider voting for someone who can't even show enough respect to the voters to voice her opinion. I mean, what the hell is going on here?

This whole thing stinks...if they're acting like this now, I fear what they'll act like when they get into the White House.
What is there to defend? Did she get the job, is she going to miss the her debate? I didn't see Joe Biden around either? Oh yeah, please explain the absence of Joe Biden after all the stupid shit he said the last few weeks?:rolleyes::confused::eek::confused::confused::confused::biggrin:
 
Vance do not seem to have read comprehension skills.


The people the quotes are from:

former Alaskan Governor Knowles and Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein

Knowles told reporters, “There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla, and the -- the original police chief had been fired by Mayor Palin, and her replacement for that police chief was protesting it, and even when I signed the bill.”

The clarification:

Knowles was the former Democratic governor of Alaska. After it was discovered that Wasilla was charging to the rape victim's insurance company (if they had it) the rape kit cost, he (Knowles) signed a bill to outlaw the practice.

and her replacement for that police chief was protesting it, and even when I signed the bill.

Weinstein added, “Wasilla under Sarah Palin's administration chose to charge sexual assault victims for the forensic kits, and that's the choice they made. They easily could have made the other choice.”

It's a matter of public record she signed the budget as Major. Either she didn't read the budger fully or didn't care or did it for religious reasons. At least the religious reason gives her some leg to stand on.


The Wasilla local paper with the report (from 2000).....read the comments many are local...some from her children (maybe)....decide for yourself.

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

Wow. You will write all that BS when the clear reason is insurance billing related. :confused::confused::confused:
 
What is there to defend? Did she get the job, is she going to miss the her debate? I didn't see Joe Biden around either? Oh yeah, please explain the absence of Joe Biden after all the stupid shit he said the last few weeks?:rolleyes::confused::eek::confused::confused::confused::biggrin:

Biden gave his thoughts on the debate on every major network except ABC. Meanwhile Palin was safely tucked away from questions that may require her to, you know, speak n' stuff. My feeling is that she'll bow out before the VP debate. We'll see.
 
Biden gave his thoughts on the debate on every major network except ABC. Meanwhile Palin was safely tucked away from questions that may require her to, you know, speak n' stuff. My feeling is that she'll bow out before the VP debate. We'll see.

Joe Biden’s history of plagiarism and “stressless scholarship” gave plenty of ammo to his enemies, one of them choosing to circulate a so-called “attack video” to demonstrate Biden’s outright plagiarism of a British politician’s speech. But this appropriation from Neal Kinnock was not the first occurrence of unacknowledged lifting by the senator from Delaware.

In 1965 Biden plagiarized while writing a paper as a student at the Syracuse University Law School in a legal methods course which he failed because of that copied paper. Such “stressless scholarship” as it is euphemistically called has become all too common in the modern Internet era with countless cheatsites and “research services” offering to sell students papers on topics from A to Z.

Biden’s case demonstrates that student plagiarism is nothing new. Only the methods of cheating have changed. Today, cheating has gone digital with the proliferation of Internet based paper filing and distributions systems, but the principles—or lack thereof—are the same. And as the Biden case illustrates, getting caught for such academic dishonesty may have serious ramifications for one’s political career. Joe Biden’s failed bid for the Democratic ticket is a case in point.

“Stressless scholarship” may seem like a pretty good idea at the time that many students make that decision to ‘crib’, copy, or dowload a paper off the Internet, but in Biden’s case the plagiarism of his student days came back to haunt his bid for the democratic presidential nomination like a spectre from his past.

In an article entitled “Biden’s Belly Flop”, Newsweek printed Joe Biden’s yearbook picture from his college days and a copy of his law school transcripts with the big “F” in his transcripts circled. Biden was given a chance to repeat his legal methods course, and above the “F” his retake grade of 80% was eventually penciled in. Being a repeat offender when it came to plagiarism made things much, much worse for Biden than they might have been otherwise in his failed bid for the Democratic presidential ticket in 1987.

Senator Biden’s plagiarism of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neal Kinnock took place at a campaign stump at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. In closing his speech, Biden took Kinnock’s ideas and language as if they were his very own inspired thoughts, prefacing Kinnock’s ideas with the phrase “I started thinking as I was coming over here . . . “. Little did Biden suspect that video footage of this speech would be spliced together with footage of Kinnock’s speech in an “attack video” which would be distributed by members of the Dukakis campaign.

Making the headline news in the New York Times, and the evening news on TV, the video was a stab in the back for Biden by his democratic competitor, and although he insisted that “I’m in this race to stay. I’m in this race to win,” the resulting publicity surrounding his unacknowledged use of Neal Kinnock’s speech was what eventually forced him out of the race. Name recognition was no longer a problem for Biden, but not the kind of name recognition which would assist his campaign for the democratic presidential nomination. His name was now a byword for plagiarism. His situation became a classic example of plagiarism for high school teachers and college instructors across the nation lecturing on the evils of unacknowledged source use.

Biden initially denied any wrongdoing, claiming that this was just an inadvertent lack of acknowledgement. Yet there were other instances of rhetorical borrowing from speeches made by Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. And the fact that Biden had given other speeches using the Kinnock passages without acknowledgment suggested that the lifting was more than just an inadvertent oversight.

As with Al Gore’s case, the perception existed in the public mind that Biden just wasn’t the real thing. He wasn’t authentic, didn’t have thoughts and ideas of his own, and was a malleable piece of clay being molded by his handlers to suit the political whims and fancies which they thought would appeal to voters. A Time magazine article by Walter Shapairo was pretty much on the money in offering the speculation that “In the end, Biden may be remembered as the candidate who truly offered the voters an echo and not a choice.”

William Safire, former speechwriter for Richard Nixon, gloated in the New York Times over Biden’s demise, quoting a supposedly “embittered Democrat” who said, “I’m going back to Gary Hart . . . At least he didn’t steal that girl from some far-lefty in England.” And he concluded his op-ed column with a swipe at Biden’s ability to think apart from his speechwriter: “So my advice to candidates like Joe Biden is this: Do justly, love perorations and walk humbly with thy speechwriter. (I forget where I got that, but it has a nice ring to it.) ”

With all the press he was receiving over his Neal Kinnock plagiarism courtesy of the Dukakis “attack videos”, Biden was quickly becoming the “most famous political plagiarist of our time”, as Thomas Mallon describes the unfortunate Delaware senator. It was just a matter of time before Biden would have to bow out of the democratic primary.

Biden himself thought that all the attention to his rhetorical borrowing was “frankly ludicrous”, and the media analysts generally agreed, stating that is was “hardly a capital offense”, but as William Safire put it, “times have changed; you can’t get away with borrowing anything these days – not even an oratorical technique, much less a phrase or paragraph – unless you are willing to give the attribution.” If Gore’s loss of the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000 was more indirectly related to plagiarism, it is evident that Biden’s case is without question a direct result of his unacknowledged use of Kinnock’s speech as if it were his very own. This instance of plagiarism and the public exposure it received cut short the presidential aspirations of an otherwise gifted orator and statesman.

Source: famousplegiarist.com
 
Biden gave his thoughts on the debate on every major network except ABC. Meanwhile Palin was safely tucked away from questions that may require her to, you know, speak n' stuff. My feeling is that she'll bow out before the VP debate. We'll see.

Really, my sincere apology to you for NOT watching as much TV because I have to work on weekends, and sorry I don't need the VP nominee to play cheer leader of what the ACTUAL candidate said.

But that's a great news, let him talk more, and let the world hear more from him!!!

"Hilary is a better VP candidate than I am"
"Stand up mister wheel chair man!!!"
"Franklin when on TV during the beginning of depression"

Want more? I'm sure I can find more.

Yeah, let him talk, I'm all for it.


I believe you lost that feeling!!!

Palin does not have to go to DC to work on the banking meltdown, she can spend time work on the debate. The major networks are so busy attacking her to the point that they don't really give her legit coverage, and you're riding on the same boat thinking how macho you are. You watch, not only she will show up to the debate, she will destroy Biden!!!
 
Last edited:
Joe Biden’s history of plagiarism and “stressless scholarship” gave plenty of ammo to his enemies, one of them choosing to circulate a so-called “attack video” to demonstrate Biden’s outright plagiarism of a British politician’s speech. But this appropriation from Neal Kinnock was not the first occurrence of unacknowledged lifting by the senator from Delaware.

In 1965 Biden plagiarized while writing a paper as a student at the Syracuse University Law School in a legal methods course which he failed because of that copied paper. Such “stressless scholarship” as it is euphemistically called has become all too common in the modern Internet era with countless cheatsites and “research services” offering to sell students papers on topics from A to Z.

Biden’s case demonstrates that student plagiarism is nothing new. Only the methods of cheating have changed. Today, cheating has gone digital with the proliferation of Internet based paper filing and distributions systems, but the principles—or lack thereof—are the same. And as the Biden case illustrates, getting caught for such academic dishonesty may have serious ramifications for one’s political career. Joe Biden’s failed bid for the Democratic ticket is a case in point.

“Stressless scholarship” may seem like a pretty good idea at the time that many students make that decision to ‘crib’, copy, or dowload a paper off the Internet, but in Biden’s case the plagiarism of his student days came back to haunt his bid for the democratic presidential nomination like a spectre from his past.

In an article entitled “Biden’s Belly Flop”, Newsweek printed Joe Biden’s yearbook picture from his college days and a copy of his law school transcripts with the big “F” in his transcripts circled. Biden was given a chance to repeat his legal methods course, and above the “F” his retake grade of 80% was eventually penciled in. Being a repeat offender when it came to plagiarism made things much, much worse for Biden than they might have been otherwise in his failed bid for the Democratic presidential ticket in 1987.

Senator Biden’s plagiarism of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neal Kinnock took place at a campaign stump at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. In closing his speech, Biden took Kinnock’s ideas and language as if they were his very own inspired thoughts, prefacing Kinnock’s ideas with the phrase “I started thinking as I was coming over here . . . “. Little did Biden suspect that video footage of this speech would be spliced together with footage of Kinnock’s speech in an “attack video” which would be distributed by members of the Dukakis campaign.

Making the headline news in the New York Times, and the evening news on TV, the video was a stab in the back for Biden by his democratic competitor, and although he insisted that “I’m in this race to stay. I’m in this race to win,” the resulting publicity surrounding his unacknowledged use of Neal Kinnock’s speech was what eventually forced him out of the race. Name recognition was no longer a problem for Biden, but not the kind of name recognition which would assist his campaign for the democratic presidential nomination. His name was now a byword for plagiarism. His situation became a classic example of plagiarism for high school teachers and college instructors across the nation lecturing on the evils of unacknowledged source use.

Biden initially denied any wrongdoing, claiming that this was just an inadvertent lack of acknowledgement. Yet there were other instances of rhetorical borrowing from speeches made by Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. And the fact that Biden had given other speeches using the Kinnock passages without acknowledgment suggested that the lifting was more than just an inadvertent oversight.

As with Al Gore’s case, the perception existed in the public mind that Biden just wasn’t the real thing. He wasn’t authentic, didn’t have thoughts and ideas of his own, and was a malleable piece of clay being molded by his handlers to suit the political whims and fancies which they thought would appeal to voters. A Time magazine article by Walter Shapairo was pretty much on the money in offering the speculation that “In the end, Biden may be remembered as the candidate who truly offered the voters an echo and not a choice.”

William Safire, former speechwriter for Richard Nixon, gloated in the New York Times over Biden’s demise, quoting a supposedly “embittered Democrat” who said, “I’m going back to Gary Hart . . . At least he didn’t steal that girl from some far-lefty in England.” And he concluded his op-ed column with a swipe at Biden’s ability to think apart from his speechwriter: “So my advice to candidates like Joe Biden is this: Do justly, love perorations and walk humbly with thy speechwriter. (I forget where I got that, but it has a nice ring to it.) ”

With all the press he was receiving over his Neal Kinnock plagiarism courtesy of the Dukakis “attack videos”, Biden was quickly becoming the “most famous political plagiarist of our time”, as Thomas Mallon describes the unfortunate Delaware senator. It was just a matter of time before Biden would have to bow out of the democratic primary.

Biden himself thought that all the attention to his rhetorical borrowing was “frankly ludicrous”, and the media analysts generally agreed, stating that is was “hardly a capital offense”, but as William Safire put it, “times have changed; you can’t get away with borrowing anything these days – not even an oratorical technique, much less a phrase or paragraph – unless you are willing to give the attribution.” If Gore’s loss of the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000 was more indirectly related to plagiarism, it is evident that Biden’s case is without question a direct result of his unacknowledged use of Kinnock’s speech as if it were his very own. This instance of plagiarism and the public exposure it received cut short the presidential aspirations of an otherwise gifted orator and statesman.

Source: famousplegiarist.com

I'm sorry but Biden could stand before the nation and declare "I have a dream, that four-score and seven years ago our fore fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation conceived in not what you can do but, what you can do for your country, Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" and then follow it with 10 minutes of uninterrupted F-Bombs while his middle finger wagged back and forth AND HE'D STILL be better than Palin.

She's bad bordering on treason. She's not only dumb (and I picked that word after deleting a whole host of others...that's literally the nicest thing I could say) but she's also that special kind wacko that only extreme religious views can produce. She served her purpose of motivating the "base" (which is actually the far-far-far-right) and distracting the public from 8 years of total and utter crap and now her flaws are manifesting on an hourly basis.

I. Can't. Wait. For. The. De. Bate.
 
Great Depression: 1929-Late 1930's/early-mid 1940's in some countries.
Franklin Roosevelt: Pres from 1932-1945
TV (as we know it, a picture, a box, etc) was invented in 1930 by a guy named Farnsworth...any Futurama fans here?

Did Roosevelt, like Biden says, get on TV in 1929 after the market crashed? No...for the above reasons. It's a silly comment but it's not what I take-away from this interview.

Wow, there is some spin here. The market crashed in 1929 when Hoover was in office. FDR wasnt elected until 1932 and didnt address the nation as its leader until he took office in 1933. FDR "fireside chats" took place on the radio, not the tv. TVs werent commercially available until the late 1930s.


The first concept of a television was a sketch done by a 14 year old boy named Philo Farnsworth in 1922. In 1927 he created a system that could display and transmit signals between separate rooms.

Paul Nipkow invented the spinning disk used to scan the image. But ultimately John Logie Baird from England developed the first working television in 1923 that was to be used for use.

But, the first television service as we know developed in 1936, where BBC began the first TV broadcast. The TV was first introduced to the public at the 1934 Worlds Fair. Then again, it wasnt until around 1953 or so, that the first consumer television was completed and released to the public.

Did he mean to say radio, perhaps. But, FDr wasnt in office when the market crashed. And he never told the people "see, look what happens".

Biden is a fool. What scares me most about the Obame / Biden ticket, is that neither of them know their american history. More importantly neither if them have a served their country in the armed forces. But, to me that is important.
 
Biden is a fool. What scares me most about the Obame / Biden ticket, is that neither of them know their american history. More importantly neither if them have a served their country in the armed forces. But, to me that is important.

Where's the spin?

Do you REALLY think Palin knows more American history than Obama or Biden????????????????

Palin is George Bush with lipstick, only dumber and further to the right. Reinvigorated base? Same garbage as the past 7+ years, only "prettier". Reform? It's like a scene from Shrek, where the frightened customers fleeing a Starbucks-like shop (about to be crushed by a gigantic Gingerbread monster) run across the street to another identical store. Silliness.

Regards,

Danny
 
Last edited:
Where's the spin?

Do you REALLY think Palin knows more American history than Obama or Biden??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Palin is George Bush with lipstick, only dumber and further to the right. Reinvigorated base? Same garbage as the past 7+ years, only prettier.

Regards,

Danny

Again, like most looney liberals, you only have opinion right now. And no facts.

I am not saying that McCain and Palin are the perfect ticket. But, Obama and Biden are flat out looney. Their track record proves they are hypocritical, insecure, ignorant, and liars.

It is going to be a tight race, and I am very excited to see the next three debates, especially the VP debate. I think that is going to be interesing.

Either way, I think they next four years are going to be a dismal time for Americans, regardless of the winning party / ticket.
 
Back
Top