Sarah Palin's War on Science

[crazybabyborg]

Franklin Raines and James Johnson don't add to the shine on Obama's advisors.

Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year at Fannie Mae, where he served as CEO from 1991 to 1998. Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75998

[A's Fever]

Interesting point, A's.

My opinion is that when the vast majority in the main stream media endorse a candidate rather than cover the news on one, people look elsewhere for questions they want answers to. I've also noticed that the meat and characteristics of some YouTube videos, has taken on a more serious and well researched quality, probably in response to the same thing.

They may have taken on a more serious and well researched quality, and, as Slogger says, the "Net and Youtube are working toward being a new free press".  I don't disagree, but feel that we still need to be very careful about the information we choose to receive and believe, because it can be easily manipulated on the Net.  If you believe some of this stuff about Obama because it seems well researched and plausible, then I assume you also believe that Trig Palin is really Bristol's baby not Sarah's, because there is some very serious research out there (photos, timelines, interviews) that makes this seem plausible.  And she hasn't releaed her medical records yet.  Now I don't for a moment believe any of this is true, but there are some pretty compelling arguments that make you go "huh?"  I believe that is true of Obama also.  And I think that is the way smear campaigns work, they just try to plant a seed of doubt.

Look at the Obama birth certificate thing.  We have Berg who brought a suit that was thrown out, and there is someone in another state trying to get Obama off the ballot.  So a couple of grass roots movements.  But things get done where there is power and money, so where is the White House on this, the Republican Party, the RNC, the FBI, the CIA, all those resources at the hands of the current admin?  They have had four years since he became a shining star at the 2004 convention. Don't you think they would have discredited Obama on this issue much earlier if they had just cause?  Politics in not about people playing nice - they would have had Obama's head on a platter if they could because it certainly would have been better for McCain to run against the less popular Hillary Clinton than the popular and charismatic Obama.  So I don't buy this stuff about the birth certificate.  (Even if this goes to the Supreme Court after Obama takes office and he is found not to be a citizen, wouldn't Biden then become president? The democrats would still retain the office so how would that strategy work?)

Why won't Obama release the document if he has nothing to hide? I don't know.  But then, why won't Sarah Palin release her medical records if she has nothing to hide?  I don't know that either.  But saying either, or both, have something to hide, seems ridiculous under the circumstances.

[crazybabyborg]

I don't know where Palin's medical records are. She announced she would produce them, and I would have thought they would be out there by now. I'll say this, they should be, just as Obama's should be. A one page letter is not medical records and he's had a lot longer than Palin.

I haven't lit on Obama's birth certificate although I'm aware of the issue. I've said it before, but the only reason my curiosity was peeked is because he hasn't just cleared it up, which seems like such an easy thing to do. I'll say the same about Palin if her records don't show up. I will say that her records will be gone through to see if there is any reason that could be construed as contributing to the possibility of having a child with Down's Syndrome, and it may very well be that the McCain campaign would prefer that so close to the election the discussions center around the issues before the voters rather than the Palin medical record sideline. That may be justified, and it may not be, but I can see that possibility.

A's, the videos on YouTube that have caught my interest are those with footage from news clips that aren't generally familiar to a lot of people. The video of Obama campaigning for Odinga, and the supporting clips from CNN are of interest to me. That incredibly important episode hasn't been a part of this campaign coverage at all, and they should have been. It depicts part of Obama's record and his record is very thin. I make judgments on actions far more than I do words.

When I hear Obama say he'll cut taxes for the middle class and define that as anyone making under 250K, I want to see how he has defined the middle class in the past, before he was actively trying to move into the white house. Here, on youtube that is available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzHhmhba8qA
Taking his own words here as 50, 60, 70 thousand a year tells me that in 2003, that was his definition. A reporter of a free press should have asked him long ago to explain what has caused him to redefine the middle class in that length of time. But, since no one has, it just hangs there. But at least it is asked. It's up to Obama to answer it or not, but should he choose not to, or should he choose not to produce his birth certificate, or medical records, or discuss his Odinga relationship, or anything else, then he will become the subject of doubt. That's the American people's freedom that used to be largely satisfied through a free press.

Someone raised the Keating association about McCain. It's a fair topic. The difference is that McCain has faced the questions. McCain has faced the investigation. McCain didn't run from the answers. We have a record to judge, and a basis to make a decision. Obama has consistently avoided and dodged, and has also been given a pass. Americans have a need to know, and I don't ever want us to just accept that if we need to know, the media will tell us. That arrangement is broken in this election.

Believe it or not, I followed the primaries and convention of both parties, and did not begin this election cycle devoted to a party. McCain was not my choice. As things unfolded, and I began to hear the plans, I made up my mind. When I heard Obama was going to raise the capital gains tax, I knew that Clinton had attempted to do the same thing, and found that LESS revenue was generated, and he had to again lower it. I remembered that very fact had come up in a primary debate with Hillary, so I went to YouTube to look, and here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

Let me ask you something. If you watched the above video, do you give it more weight than if I had just posted the fact? Yes, there were a few messages added, but you had the ability to evaluate the demeanor and context of the answer without taking my word for it. The economy wasn't in the same crisis in April as it is now. Now it's even more important to look at this and evaluate what we are about to do. I know from this video that for Obama, the issue is "fairness" over generating revenue. He wants to level the playing field, which has brought him accusations of socialism, more than he wants to strengthen the American economy. The over zealous attempts at fairness created the situation where loans to people without jobs could obtain mortgages, and led to overwhelming corruption, and a financial crisis that history teaches us could very well turn into depression IF we raise taxes to address it.

The issues couldn't be more important and our media isn't getting to them. YouTube can be an extremely useful tool in the absense of an unbiased free press, and it's just unfortunate that it's all we seem to have.

[truthseeker2]

Warren Buffet, and many at his economic level, will not be impacted by the Obama economics as much as the small businesses will be.  Think about this.  Buffet indicated that he had no problem with the death tax where the government takes a great deal of what we leave to our children.  These are the things WE worked for that the government will be taking more of instead of allowing us to decide who gets it.  Buffet has enough money and has set his kids up through non-profits and trusts that the government cannot touch.  People like us do not have that kind of money.  So for Buffet to support Obama as some type of economic advisor is even more reason for me to vote against him.  Just because someone made a lot of money does not allows extrpolate into knowing what will work for everyone else.