No One Could Have Predicted

You know the right side going to call you a "pretty woman" sexist. But I as a women will defend you because I as a real woman can see her pettiness, manipulativeness, and how it hides behind an appealing friendly smile.

I think Palin will be doing a job she can perhaps actually handle now. After all there are other pundits out there that are not that smart. She can spin things as much as she likes and she doesn't have to know elementary stuff like why there are two Korea's North and South. She will be speaking to a group of people that are used to dumb down reporting. PERFECT spot for her. From there maybe when Simon Cowell leaves IDOL she can go on to be a judge! Bravo Sarah you found your job. And who was the idiot who thought you could be his VP?

Nothing better than Sarah how about this:

What Terrorism, Healthcare, Unemployment Have in Common
Monday, 11 Jan 2010 04:58 PM
Article Font Size
By: Ernest Istook
There are links between terrorist attacks, job losses, and the healthcare legislation that is being completed behind closed doors. Just connect the dots:

• A massive failed bureaucracy didn’t protect Flight 253 from a would-be bomber, so why expect that an even-larger bureaucracy can protect our health?

• With 10 percent unemployment and 85,000 more jobs lost during the Christmas buying season, why pass a healthcare bill that promises to be a huge job-killer?

The common factor is that big government cannot efficiently guarantee homeland security or job security, much less health security. Big government is killing the economy by making it too risky for companies to create jobs.

While terrorist attacks and the suffering job market push healthcare out of the headlines, the threat of government-run healthcare moves ahead stealthily behind closed doors. Its hallmarks are exorbitant costs, extreme bureaucracy, and no help for the 85 percent of Americans who have coverage they find satisfactory (but just wish it didn’t cost so much). But the legislation is no longer about them.

As one writer observed, “What started as a plan to find ways to cover people who don't have insurance transformed into thousands of pages of new regulations, mandates, prohibitions, oversight and general central control.”

Both House and Senate bills would retain an army of existing health bureaucrats, and add a new bureaucracy under the “health czar”— formally known as the “Health Choices Commissioner”— with far more intrusive regimentation of your life than any airport screening system.

Adding more taxpayer-funded bureaucracy was President Obama’s announced response to a failed security system, and he’s applying that same approach to healthcare, just as he does to jobs.

When the Labor Department announced the loss of 85,000 more jobs, President Obama’s “solution” was to subsidize a claimed 17,000 “green” jobs by giving $2.3 billion in subsidies to wind and solar energy. That works out to $135,295 in taxpayer money per job, but will also kill more jobs than it creates, by displacing current energy sector jobs.

Reality doesn’t work the way Obama claims. We already have 7.7 million fewer jobs than Obama promised we’d have if we passed his $787 billion “stimulus” package. And most jobs “saved or created” were government jobs.

Voters are not fooled. According to Rasmussen Reports, “Half of voters nationwide (50%) say increases in government spending hurts the overall economy. Just 28% says increased government spending helps the economy.”

So why make the job market worse by passing President Obama’s healthcare plan? The Heritage Foundation has assessed that the pending healthcare legislation — with its taxes, regulations and mandates — will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Big government is holding back the economy. More big government is the disease, not the cure.

As one business analyst writes, "Unemployment is at 10 percent and all these businesses see are higher costs in the future from healthcare and other policies — so they are hoarding cash. They're making money, but why logically would any businessman use this money to expand if he doesn't know what all his costs will be because of the expansion of these government programs?"

Our biggest job-creators, small businesses, are especially skittish. As NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businesses) reports, after its latest national survey of small business, the problem is the uncertainty caused by big government:

“The horizon is filled with cost unknowns, from healthcare to cap-and-trade to yawning deficits and the need to come to grips with them, from paid family and medical leave to card check, from expiration of the Bush tax cuts to state decisions about their finances.

Washington cannot expect small business owners, facing difficult economic circumstances anyway, to commit themselves to investing in new employees or equipment and vehicles without acknowledging and revealing the policy-inspired costs that will be imposed on them. It is all about uncertainty and confidence.”

A similar description was offered in the Wall Street Journal by economic scholars from Stanford and the University of Chicago (including Nobel Prize winner Gary S. Becker), who summarized the job-stifling threat as “changes that could radically transform the American economy.”

As President Ronald Reagan so often reminded us, government is not the solution . . . It’s the problem.

Palin is very good at cutting off Obama at the knees and showing him to be the fraud most Americans at least suspect he is. It only takes her a couple words to do so.

That should make for some good television.

Jeff….I'm tellin' ya', you gotta' quit reading the stuff you are reading. Who in the hell is Ernest Istook and where was this piece found, what site? There is not one paragraph that doesn't contain falsity of some kind in it. Honestly…..I can tear every paragraph apart and wipe my hiney with it…..but I ain't got the time to deal with ignorance of that magnitude. Or is it ignorance? Perhaps it's pure political propaganda meant to deceive, you know, in light of those horrendous numbers Republicans have been racking up……what is it again?….27%-identify-with-the-GOP now…..isn't that right?

I don't know if you meant it to be that way, larry…but that was pretty funny…what you said.

WTF!!! Rev paint wings on those pigs in the previous post and let them fly because a miracle has happened. I finally agree with something Andrea says. Hallelujah!
She is still hoooooottttttttttt!!!!

Except for that last photo. WT….

Prove it. You cant, so you make your bullshit blanket statements to appease the other LIARs Liberally Indoctrinated Anal Retentives, on this page.

Riddle me this Progressive marxist man, for the first time in the history of this nation more people work for the government, than work in the private sector, how is this sustainable?

Or the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the federal income tax, how is taking more a. Fair, b. Not economically regressive? Aurthur Laffer, a famous economist, has proven that raising taxes (beyond a certain marginal rate) reduces the revenue realized by the taxing entity. We are above that rate, as proven by the Bush tax cuts, the same top 1% paid 36% of taxes prior to the tax cut, and 40% after, while IRS Revenues have also increased
In 2002 total collections 797 b
2003 748 b
2004 832 b
2005 935 b
2006 1024 b
2007 1116 b

Source: IRS
How is that possible? Cut the tax rates for everyone who pays taxes, and the amount collected goes up, I guess your little brain will explode trying to figure this one out.

Your 27% may or may not be wrong, but conservatives now out number progressives once again. According to Gallup. This nation was founded on conservative (freedom) ideals, and the progressive (marxist) ideas, (historically proven wrong again and again) have gotten us into the mess we are in, social engineering, is not possible nor desirable.

No Jeff, I do not want fries with that!

She's still smarter than Biden.

Again, Tbomb puts a smile on my face.

Jeff….classic wingnut subject change. But don't fret…..I am unafraid to openly shred each and every modern conservative movement's failings, one by one. Come to think of it…..that's what I do every day, and will continue doing.

average…..the last Palin photo was her working as a sports-news personality on a local Alaska network. That's where it all began for Sarah. The cross-eyed look is even attractive, isn't it?

Roy…Biden knows about the Korean War.

LOL Rev if your into that…..
She has definitely gotten more attractive with age

She's no Reno or Napolitano, that's for sure. By the by, Reverend, at one point you promised to explain the preponderance of ugly women in the Democratic party. Have you come up with any ideas?

Reno and Napalitano. They both have more facial hair and deeper voices than myself.

Give Maddow a couple years and she'll be right there, too. It's like they're all drinking from the same trough or something.

joe sez….."They both have more facial hair and deeper voices than myself."

to meet that standard they could both be sopranos and have absolutely no facial hair

let's do the math…….let's say they have twice the facial hair you have. 2 X 0(the amount of facial hair you have) = 0

Wow Walt, you and Andrea and Tbomb and some others just kill me. I see why America is in the shape it is in. LOL Oh Oh wait here i'll give you a response you'll understand….." I'm rubber, you're glue….."

joe, you don't like my math?

What's the matter with a male without facial hair, walt? You don't like Native Americans, maybe? Or maybe you don't think Asians are quite as human as whites? I suggest you keep the racist filth to yourself or maybe take it over to one of your Aryan nutjob sites.

I don't see any facial hair on either Reno and Napalitano

let's do the math….we don't know how much facial hair joe has so we'll assign that X. We do know Reno and Napalitano have 0 facial hair. Reno and Napalitano have more facial hair than joe so we will say they have double the amount

therefore (X) x 2 = 0
(X) = 0/2
(X) = 0 multiplication by 0 rule

does that help?

according to you….joe must be Asian or a Native American with a high squeaky voice

I think Barbara Boxer and Marie Cantwell are very attractive ladies. Who ya' got from the Republican side of the Senate to compete with those two?

Don't forget what Gump"s Momma used to say, "beauty is as beauty does"……Palin wouldn't be considered to be beautiful from Gump's perspective.

I take back what I said . After watching a clip of Sarah on Fox she can not handle the job of pundit. She talks in script with talking points and is not natural. Pure torture to listen to . Sarah maybe American idol judge might be better for you.

The Palin bashing continues from the hate-filled left. What a surprise.

I saw part of the Palin/O'Rielly thing….I don't know why but the thing that came to mind was the Saturday Night Live skit with Chevy Chase……it was the news and whenever the female anchor would be talking Chevy was in the background making faces.

my understanding, from Mark Halperin, is that after the show O'Rielly took Palin out for a falafa dinner and gave her a loofa for doing such a great job.

Mark Halperin also said Todd attended the Alaska Independent Party (which Todd is not a member of) 9-12 snowmobile roundup project

Halperin is a dweeb slug. And insult to the slug kingdom.

See, just making up lies again Walt…..
Although I would take her out for a Falafa and a loofa.

Rev I also appreciate your taste in women. Both of them are beautiful. Boxer is very sexy for her age.(until she talks, sorry. But aren't most of them(women) like that….LOL just kiddin)

C'mon Reverend, don't backtrack on the issue. Sure there's a fox here or there, but why all the dogs?

joe….you don't think there was a skit on SNL that was like that? LOL

C'mon Reverend…..Halperin is where joe got the un-sourced, un-verified and paraphrased thing about Obama serving coffee to Clinton.

I thought I would throw Halperin's name in there so when joe saw it he would say…."hey, it's from Halperin….it's gotta be true"

larry….Rev's slug comment….I'm sure he didn't intentionally mean to offend you

A skit like what Walt? Sometimes it's hard to follow you and what you write.

Who is Halperin? I don't follow particular authors or bloggers.

I like that pic of Napalitano, Reno and Hillary Clinton at the beach in the previous story.

larry, why all the dogs? The world has more dogs….than not.

On average, conservative women are much hotter than liberal women. The jealousy of liberal women is what makes them liberal women in the first place. It's a psychological malfunction, a desire to get even for an imagined slight from god.

What someone needs to explain to me is why MEN become liberals. My best guess is penis envy…or cowardice.

Most are pencil necks, King. Just look at Obama. Have you seen him bowl or throw a baseball?

larry….nothing about basketball?

King….if you are an example of a conservative I can see why most men would claim to be liberal

King….arn't you the reason women become lesbians?

He plays basketball like one of those fellows who cries foul every time he misses a shot, walt. Strictly an outside guy, and he can't dribble much either. On one of those videos purportedly proving his court skills, he tried a little crossover and it bounced over his head. Pushing his b-ball prowess only underscores his basically fraudulent nature.

Boy, I just saw an upclose picture of Barbara Boxer, Reverend. Ignore the 'stache and give her some leeway for being old as the hills and she's maybe average.

King…

"On average, conservative women are much hotter than liberal women. The jealousy of liberal women is what makes them liberal women in the first place. It's a psychological malfunction, a desire to get even for an imagined slight from god.

What someone needs to explain to me is why MEN become liberals. My best guess is penis envy…or cowardice."

I realize that is snark, although reekingly sexist…..but was Thomas Jefferson small-appendaged, ya' think? Or cowardly?

Do you really want to throw out a charge of sexism in your post that started with an old photo of Sarah Palin in a swimsuit ? Ah, the irony.

I'm a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson, but his Democratic party is nothing at all like yours. If it was, I'd be a Democrat. You don't believe in too much of anything that Jefferson stood for, Rev. Here's a hint – Jefferson wasn't a socialist.