"I will live, I will die for the people of America"

Pretty strong rhetoric and might be compelling if it came from a 5 star general with 40 years of service to his country. Instead it came from an airhead who resign her job as governor in the least populous state, when the going got rough and a better offer came along. She's dangerous not only for everything she doesn't know, but for all the things she doesn't think she needs to know. That she isn't booed off the stage anywhere she appears tells alot more about the audience than it does about her.

Actually, it's the 47th least populous with Vermont, North Dakota and Wyoming having less people. But it's #7 for GDP per capita and I think every resident even gets a cut of the oil revenue each year.

Anyway you cut it, being Governor of Alaska is a helluva lot more impressive than being Governor of Arkansas.

As for that quote, you're right, it doesn't really make sense coming from her. Then again, it wouldn't sound much better coming from Obama either - or most other politicians. Instead of the unrealistic sacrifice of life for the country, they should offer to give up the great benefits they get working for the federal government.

I would expect, since she was Commander of the Alaska National Guard, she might know how to properly pronounce "Corpsman".

I would expect, since she was Commander of the Alaska National Guard, she might know how to properly pronounce "Corpsman".

I bet he'll blame it on the teleprompter. Maybe he should have written in phonetically on his hand.

I suspect that many Republicans were that desperate for a new hope in their leadership that many accepted Palin without question.

Worse than her have governed countries I suppose.

Is there anyone else waiting in the wings? As in new blood?

commercial fishing in alaska and by anyones account that is no walk in the park.

btw on your demand for an answer to LBJ and jfk, the electorial college put jfk into office and it was by all accounts LBJ who had the political power. imo if LBJ had not been bogged down with civil rights and vietnam he would have put in place everything that bo is trying to do now and more.

Couldn't have been much of a prez getting bogged down in two bit issues like Vietnam and civil rights.

The Palin commercial fishing business..... forgive me, but my efforts to track it down reveals a fairly minor operation. No doubt you'll enlighten me though?

here is the thing and it is not to be pro palin but the fact that she knows what it is to be business person and bo does not. no matter how small her commercial business was she had to invest her own money for fuel and make sure the boat would stay maintained to stay a float and had all the equip needed to catch the fish, hence she knows what it is to take the risk of making the investment and possibly no breaking even or even going broke. This is the way that most small busness people operate and this is what bo has never done nor worried about. he is not able to relate to the back bone of the amercian financial system.

Highly spurious argument on a few counts.

1. The president's job is not to be bothered with the common sense details of small business models....he has a team of experts that are familiar with the details of small and large business models.

2. It is not a good idea to run a complex economy on the basis of a small business model.

3. A country is not just it's economy...it IS the people.

To say Palin is better suited to run the American economy on the basis of her small time business dealings is a very hollow argument.

The people of the US, and for that matter many other countries, have a tendency to evaluate personal success in terms of the money they accumulate in their lifetimes.

The people of the US, and for that matter many other countries, have a tendency to evaluate personal success in terms of the money they accumulate in their lifetimes.

Not that I think Obama is a good president & I definitely think Palin would be worse but.....

I would guess Obama made more money than Palin before both hit the spotlight

Estimated net worth of $1.3M, according to Money magazine, December 2007. See also Henry Blodget, "Barack Obama and His Money", Slate, 13 March 2007: "According to Obama's most recent public financial statements, he and his wife, Michelle, were worth between $500,000 and $2 million at the end of 2005 (excluding whatever equity they have in their $1.65 million Chicago house)." Presumably much of this is from pre-tax royalties of $1.2M for The Audacity of Hope. None of Obama's wealth is inherited. The Obama family's 2007 tax returns indicate a combined income of $4.2M, nearly all from book royalties. They paid $1.4M in federal taxes, with donations of $240K to charity.

In addition to Ms. Palin’s $125,000 state salary, Mr. Palin earned $93,000 last year running his own commercial fishing business and working part-time at BP’s oil production facility, according to her public financial disclosure reports.

Sarah Palin and her family seem to be on the lower end of the political wealth spectrum. According to their tax returns, "The Palins paid $22,721 in taxes on $166,080 adjusted gross income last year."

commercial fishing in alaska and by anyones account that is no walk in the park.

btw on your demand for an answer to LBJ and jfk, the electorial college put jfk into office and it was by all accounts LBJ who had the political power. imo if LBJ had not been bogged down with civil rights and vietnam he would have put in place everything that bo is trying to do now and more.

Couldn't have been much of a prez getting bogged down in two bit issues like Vietnam and civil rights.

The Palin commercial fishing business..... forgive me, but my efforts to track it down reveals a fairly minor operation. No doubt you'll enlighten me though?

here is the thing and it is not to be pro palin but the fact that she knows what it is to be business person and bo does not. no matter how small her commercial business was she had to invest her own money for fuel and make sure the boat would stay maintained to stay a float and had all the equip needed to catch the fish, hence she knows what it is to take the risk of making the investment and possibly no breaking even or even going broke. This is the way that most small busness people operate and this is what bo has never done nor worried about. he is not able to relate to the back bone of the amercian financial system.

Highly spurious argument on a few counts.

1. The president's job is not to be bothered with the common sense details of small business models....he has a team of experts that are familiar with the details of small and large business models.

2. It is not a good idea to run a complex economy on the basis of a small business model.

3. A country is not just it's economy...it IS the people.

To say Palin is better suited to run the American economy on the basis of her small time business dealings is a very hollow argument.

actually that is just a small part of her background that makes her more qualified than bo, she was a small town mayor, and the gov. of alaska which is the highest possible elected state office and a position that placed her as the head of the alaskan national guard. btw my main point is that it is the small business that hires and pays the population of local towns and cities, their taxes keep schools and hospitals open. palin is a small town girl who has gotten in the game with big leauge players. the tea party will continue to preach the message of "govt for the people by the people" because washington has lost contact with the wants of the people. at least the republicans typically come with a business background and understand the struggle and sacrifices owners of business make. I am not a person who has ever worked a job as an adult so i can not say what it is to be an employee but i have owned and operated business and i dont think employees will ever understand the risk factor. bo has no clue what the risk factor in business means so how can he be any more than a welfare advocate.

back to the topic for a minute...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/11/the_fight_for_responsible_limited_government.html

By Mark Davis

On April 15 at Dallas City Hall, I looked out over a sea of attendees at one of several national gatherings that launched the Tea Party movement.

As the throng dissipated that night, messages of liberty and fiscal responsibility still ringing sweetly in their ears, the shared question was: Will this ball keep rolling? Or will it simply wane into pleasant nostalgia, a fading memory of a one-day pushback against out-of-control government?

Almost a year later, the ball still rolls. The Tea Party movement is one of the most noteworthy grassroots uprisings in recent American political history. And one of the most misunderstood.

So as this year unfolds toward an election day that will show how much nationwide clout the movement can muster, let's review what Tea Party passions are - and what they are not.

The Tea Party movement is not a nascent third party. Most tea partiers know that splitting the voters looking for less spending and lower taxes is a guarantee of more domination by Democrats with no interest in either.

The Tea Party movement is not "anti-tax." It is against confiscatory taxes, outlandish taxes, excessive taxes - choose your adjective. But this "anti-tax" nonsense is the same kind of obnoxious slander as calling people who favor strong borders "anti-immigration."

The Tea Party movement is not driven by social conservatism. That doesn't mean you won't find plenty of tea partiers who are devout advocates of protecting the unborn and traditional marriage - it's just that the Tea Party engine is driven first and foremost by a desire to return government to its proper constitutional limits and run it with a lot less money. Anyone driven by that passion is welcome in any roomful of tea partiers, no matter what views they may hold about God and gays.

That is, by the way, part of why the movement is so strong. If it were to adopt some litmus tests for admittedly important social issues, it would see its ranks dwindle mightily. Electing people to bring back fiscal sanity in 2010 and 2012 will require the help of millions of voters who may be centrist, libertarian or even socially liberal. How do you think Scott Brown won in Massachusetts?

Finally, the Tea Party movement is not some subculture of bug-eyed lunatics. Any political movement is going to have some characters ranging from colorful to occasionally unhinged, but the insulting tone of much of the coverage of the movement would have you believe that these are fringe extremists who could snap at any moment.

Well, the truth is, they have snapped already. The sound we are hearing is the proverbial camel's back breaking after years of reckless spending, punitive taxation and usurpations of liberty that have crippled every citizen's opportunity to enjoy the full promise of what America is supposed to be about: freedom and opportunity, with the least government necessary to maintain an ordered society.

The people drifting toward the Tea Party movement are not extreme. They are, in fact, fighting extremism - the extremism that has brought us a government that takes far too much, spends far too much and runs our lives far too much.

At long last, people who might disagree on a number of other things are uniting in a fight for strong but limited government, run responsibly and frugally. It took Democrats and Republicans to create this mess, and entrenched members of both parties could soon find themselves back in the private sector if the enthusiasm of tea parties and town halls carries all the way to the November elections.

With participants from so many walks of life, and no rigid structure or leadership, it can be a challenge to define exactly what the Tea Party movement is. But I'll tell you one more thing that it is not: It is not going away.

Mark Davis is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show is heard weekdays nationwide on the ABC Radio Network. His e-mail address is [email protected].

commercial fishing in alaska and by anyones account that is no walk in the park.

btw on your demand for an answer to LBJ and jfk, the electorial college put jfk into office and it was by all accounts LBJ who had the political power. imo if LBJ had not been bogged down with civil rights and vietnam he would have put in place everything that bo is trying to do now and more.

Couldn't have been much of a prez getting bogged down in two bit issues like Vietnam and civil rights.

The Palin commercial fishing business..... forgive me, but my efforts to track it down reveals a fairly minor operation. No doubt you'll enlighten me though?

here is the thing and it is not to be pro palin but the fact that she knows what it is to be business person and bo does not. no matter how small her commercial business was she had to invest her own money for fuel and make sure the boat would stay maintained to stay a float and had all the equip needed to catch the fish, hence she knows what it is to take the risk of making the investment and possibly no breaking even or even going broke. This is the way that most small busness people operate and this is what bo has never done nor worried about. he is not able to relate to the back bone of the amercian financial system.

Highly spurious argument on a few counts.

1. The president's job is not to be bothered with the common sense details of small business models....he has a team of experts that are familiar with the details of small and large business models.

2. It is not a good idea to run a complex economy on the basis of a small business model.

3. A country is not just it's economy...it IS the people.

To say Palin is better suited to run the American economy on the basis of her small time business dealings is a very hollow argument.

You are correct that "the president's job is not to be bothered with the common sense details of small business models...." However, to be a competent manager of any organization, one must have an understanding of what the subordinates are to accomplish. BO is clueless. I have been in both situations. I was hired as a manager of a production company that had assembly lines. I had no idea how to run any of the machines. Soon it was discovered, and as the union employees caused machinery to shut down, thereby allowing them to take breaks, I was clueless as to how to correct the situation. I did not last long in that position. In another scenario, I ran an office where I had worked, and/or had training in every position for which I was charged with managing. Piece of cake.

So although your statement is correct, the fact is for one to manage effectively, one must know what is required and how to perform, or at least have an understanding of each position that one supervises.

2. One does not "run a complex economy on the basis of a small business model", but one must understand how to run a business, large or small, in order to successfully manage an economy. Once again, obviously, BO is clueless.

3. I do not follow your point here - yes the country is not just economy, but without its economy, what would you expect to occur? Well, actually, with BO in charge, we are discovering exactly what will occur.

The first requirement of managing is to surround yourself with the most qualified people you can possibly find. Obama has been an abject failure in this regard.

His previous lack of managerial experience and knowledge is evident.

The first requirement of managing is to surround yourself with the most qualified people you can possibly find. Obama has been an abject failure in this regard.

His previous lack of managerial experience and knowledge is evident.

Robert Gates?

The first requirement of managing is to surround yourself with the most qualified people you can possibly find. Obama has been an abject failure in this regard.

His previous lack of managerial experience and knowledge is evident.

Robert Gates?

Obama didn't find him, Bush did.

The first requirement of managing is to surround yourself with the most qualified people you can possibly find. Obama has been an abject failure in this regard.

His previous lack of managerial experience and knowledge is evident.

Robert Gates?

Yep. A good example of somebody that should not have been carried over. Obama went with a known source in the middle of the wars, rather than risk a change.

How about Napolitano, Emmanuel, Gibbs, Van Jones, Geithner, Clinton, Solis, LaHood and Daschle, to name a few?

You can find lightweights in all administrations. This administration seems to be top heavy with them.

And lest we forget...Joe Biden.

Do I detect a little disagreement in the ranks here?

The first requirement of managing is to surround yourself with the most qualified people you can possibly find. Obama has been an abject failure in this regard.

His previous lack of managerial experience and knowledge is evident.

Robert Gates?

Yep. A good example of somebody that should not have been carried over. Obama went with a known source in the middle of the wars, rather than risk a change.

How about Napolitano, Emmanuel, Gibbs, Van Jones, Geithner, Clinton, Solis, LaHood and Daschle, to name a few?

You can find lightweights in all administrations. This administration seems to be top heavy with them.

And lest we forget...Joe Biden.

The writing was on the wall from the start when he aligned himself with the likes of Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. Initially he denied knowing Ayers, referring to him as some guy in the neighborhood. But then when confronted with evidence of this obvious deception, he downplayed the relationship. For those who ignored BO's clear lack of character, lack of experience, and his declaration that 'spreading around the wealth' is the answer, choosing to vote him into office, you have only yourselves to blame.

The first requirement of managing is to surround yourself with the most qualified people you can possibly find. Obama has been an abject failure in this regard.

His previous lack of managerial experience and knowledge is evident.

Robert Gates?

Yep. A good example of somebody that should not have been carried over. Obama went with a known source in the middle of the wars, rather than risk a change.

How about Napolitano, Emmanuel, Gibbs, Van Jones, Geithner, Clinton, Solis, LaHood and Daschle, to name a few?

You can find lightweights in all administrations. This administration seems to be top heavy with them.

And lest we forget...Joe Biden.

Can we please forget him please!!

Tea Party sips bitter brew

Sarah Palin is keen to harness the grassroots campaign against Obama's `socialism' in aid of her Republican agenda

THEY have made their voices heard loud and clear over the past year, joining protest rallies in their droves across the US.

They are the disillusioned, the alienated and the just plain angry. Many are unemployed after the recession cost them their jobs and mortgages.

The most curious thing about this amorphous conservative movement called the Tea Party is that it is becoming a potent force in US politics, yet it has no defined leadership, no national campaign organisation and no big donors.

Its origins, while they can be traced, point to no single founder.

There are plenty of allegations about how the group is run behind the scenes by right-wing lobby groups, some clearly aligned with the Republican Party.

But thousands of grassroots Tea Party protesters have nonetheless banded together, united by common themes: they oppose big government, support public spending cuts and resent Washington for bailing out Wall Street bankers ahead of helping them.

Most disturbing for Barack Obama, having suffered a serious slide in opinion polls after 12 months in office, is the Tea Party's antagonism towards him.

While some of the anger directed at the President has had racist overtones -- placards at rallies portraying him as witchdoctor with a bone through his nose, or repeated claims he is a Muslim not born in the US and therefore unqualified to be president -- most is based on fears that Obama is promoting a socialist agenda to grab government control.

The risk for Obama is that a campaigning role played by the Tea Party -- much in the style of activist network MoveOn.org that helped him to victory in 2008 -- could influence swinging voters away from the Democrats at mid-term congressional elections in November. If successful, it could spell political disaster for the President's party and end all hope of pushing through his legislative agenda. If the momentum continued to 2012, it could help make Obama a one-term president.

Read More

While some of the anger directed at the President has had racist overtones -- placards at rallies portraying him as witchdoctor with a bone through his nose..

Racist or just humor?

While some of the anger directed at the President has had racist overtones -- placards at rallies portraying him as witchdoctor with a bone through his nose..

Racist or just humor?

No such thing as racist humour any more General.

I found the article interesting when you consider the position of the Liberal Party of Australia at the moment. Note the capital L, it's means a lot in Aussie politics.

The conservatives are in total disarray, the recent move to the right with the election of a Catholic leader speaks volumes and the party faithful will be watching the Tea Party evolution with great interest.

The Australian newspaper tries to convince people it carries the liberal flag, (note the small l, it means a lot etc etc) in the Australian print media, a difficult task when it's part of the Murdoch empire, but employs some of the canniest conservative writers in the country. The job being done here seems to be to make a move to the right by conservatism seem not an unreasonable option.

Personally I hope it works, the majority of Australians, and Americans, are too smart to be sucked in by that crap.

Personally I hope it works, the majority of Australians, and Americans, are too smart to be sucked in by that crap.

I dunno. The majority back home got sucked into "Hope" and "Change".

Personally I hope it works, the majority of Australians, and Americans, are too smart to be sucked in by that crap.

I dunno. The majority back home got sucked into "Hope" and "Change".

Yes & no IMHO.........It was the same old.... same old...

It was the usual outcome after having experienced the previous years.

Folks voted more against that than for the new.

If anything the fault lay in believing not much could be worse.

Once again the None Of The Above option would have been the best choice if afforded.

On a side note....I know Mr O cannot speak without a teleprompter because I have heard small interviews without one

& it is like he is a completely different person. Not very well spoken at all.

But I was very surprised when I saw a photo's & video of him using prompters to talk to a 6th grade class. January 2010

Personally I hope it works, the majority of Australians, and Americans, are too smart to be sucked in by that crap.

I dunno. The majority back home got sucked into "Hope" and "Change".

Yes & no IMHO.........It was the same old.... same old...

It was the usual outcome after having experienced the previous years.

Folks voted more against that than for the new.

If anything the fault lay in believing not much could be worse.

Once again the None Of The Above option would have been the best choice if afforded.

It's almost like being an antelope in Africa. You don't need to be the fastest in the herd, just faster than the slowest when a hungry lion is trying to chase down lunch. So our politicians at election time are rarely the best for the country, they just need to be slightly better than the other candidates in the race. We're all doomed.

On a side note....I know Mr O cannot speak without a teleprompter because I have heard small interviews without one

& it is like he is a completely different person. Not very well spoken at all.

But I was very surprised when I saw a photo's & video of him using prompters to talk to a 6th grade class. January 2010

I wrote about this before. I'm glad someone found the photo. He really isn't as brilliant as he's been made out to be by the press. Obama looked pretty bright standing next to Bush. But now that Bush is no longer there, he doesn't shine so much anymore.

The best speakers aren't always the best, or smartest, politicians.

I recall a number of people who should have risen higher in Government but didn't due to inability to communicate directly,and more than a few slick talkers who rose far higher than they should have.

The best speakers aren't always the best, or smartest, politicians.

I recall a number of people who should have risen higher in Government but didn't due to inability to communicate directly,and more than a few slick talkers who rose far higher than they should have.

It is not surprising in many ways that the example you chose was offering hope to folks who were sick of it all.

Scary thought

Remember he in your picture came on the scene as a savior/false prophet after The Failure of the Weimar Republic

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Weimar_Republic_fail

A WARNING TO THE TEA PARTY NATION

I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name" celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!

Full Article at link above

Another.....

Ron Paul vs. Sarah Palin for the Soul of the Tea Parties

"Neocon Palin..."

Now she's a "Neocon"? Ten bucks says the person who posted that doesn't even know what one is.

Now she's a "Neocon"? Ten bucks says the person who posted that doesn't even know what one is.

Anything is possible but then again ...if a person gets their definition of Neocon from Wikipedia they may assume wrongly the person who posted it ..Alex Jones... is wrong.