Ladysuz...have you ever heard the saying, "you're not smart enough to shine my shoes"...or the baseball guy who said..."kid, you're too small. You ought to go out and shine shoes"? But, tell you what if it offends you that much, I will delete it! Not a problem...and over there ---------------------------> would you please have them stop making sexist remarks about Palin, like calling her a vagina, etc. etc. etc.? Ooops, forgot to say thank you!

Not for nothing, but aren't the arrows going in the wrong direction?  Shouldn't they be pointing left?  <---------------------far left?

Anyway, I'm not concerned about what happens Thursday with the Sarah/Joe debate.  No matter what Sarah says, even if she is brilliant, she will be destroyed by the press within minutes after the debate has ended.  I'm sure Cafferty of CNN already has his criticisms written.  He'll just need to fill in the blanks.

No one is going to change their minds about who to vote for.  It will all come down to 4 things in my mind:

1. Spending: who has the most plans for more spending, or who will be our watchdog against outrageous spending.  

2.  The war: who will do a better job of ending the war in a responsible way. 

3. Drilling:  And who is for or against drilling.  

4. Taxes:  Who has the better plan? 

I was wondering why Ireland did so well in getting businesses over to their country.  11%  business tax rate will do that everytime.  I wonder if they have any unemployment issues?

One Senator out there suggested we cut capital gains taxes to zero for the next 2 years to get our economy back on track.  Obama wants to up them further then what they are today.  Hmmm.

No problems at Freddie and Fannie per the Dems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=email

I don't know the date of this hearing.  This would be funny to watch them all singing the praises of those who done us in if it wasn't such a serious matter before us today.

CBC apologizes for column maligning Sarah Palin

The Canadian Press

September 29, 2008 at 6:08 AM EDT

TORONTO - The CBC has issued an apology and retraction for posting a controversial online column by freelancer Heather Mallick about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin earlier this month.

Following 300-plus complaints from readers, and attacks from Canadian and American media organizations, including Fox News, publisher John Cruickshank said the public broadcaster had erred in its editorial judgment and should never had been posted.

In an online statement, Mr. Cruickshank said reaction to the column has caused the CBC to institute new editing procedures that will ensure inappropriate work won't appear.

"We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack," he said in a statement posted on the broadcaster's website.

Despite the vitriolic response to Ms. Mallick's Sept. 5 piece, "A Mighty Wind Blows Through the Republican Convention," the CBC had initially stood by the article and said it wouldn't remove it from its website.

In the article, Ms. Mallick said Ms. Palin appeals to "the white trash vote" with her "toned-down version of the porn actress look."

Vince Carlin, the broadcaster's ombudsman who was later asked to assess the offending article, determined many of Ms. Mallick's assertions lacked a basis in fact.

"Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective," Mr. Cruickshank agreed. "It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan."

In the wake of her column, Ms. Mallick has said she's faced a slew of abusive comments. She was called a "pig" by a Fox News anchor and branded an insane Pakistani Muslim on Fox message boards.

She has also received threatening e-mail, some of which include anti-Semitic slurs - despite the fact she's neither Jewish nor Muslim.

Ms. Mallick has never expressed apologies for her column, and had one week ago lauded the CBC for supporting her right to expression.

Partly in response the outcry, Mr. Cruickshank said CBCNews.ca has plans to soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions expressed online "to better reflect the depth and texture of this country."

.

Tina Fey makes second SNL appearance as Gov. Palin  Tina Fey reprised her role as Sarah Palin on "Saturday Night Live," again appearing as the Republican vice presidential candidate in an opening sketch. Emmy-award winning Tina Fey reprised her role as Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live. Saturday night's show -- the third of the season for the NBC comedy program -- brought back the season premiere tandem of Fey and Amy Poehler, who opened the season with a memorable sketch featuring Fey as Palin and Poehler as Hillary Clinton.This time around, Poehler played CBS's Katie Couric, parodying the interview with Palin earlier this week. Poehler, though, mostly played straight man to Fey, who ratcheted up her performance of Sen. John McCain's running mate by satirizing her foreign affairs experience.When Poehler's Couric pushed Fey's Palin to specifically discuss how she would help facilitate democracy abroad, Fey gave in: "Katie, I'd like to use one of my lifelines. ... I want to phone a friend."When a confused Poehler informed her that that wasn't how the interview worked, Fey's Palin responded -- alluding to one of the governor's most quoted lines from the interview -- "Well, in that case, I'm just gonna have to get back to ya."Fey, a former cast member and head writer of "SNL," has seemingly been thrust back into regular appearances on the program despite her full-time gig with NBC's "30 Rock."She is widely considered to look like Palin, and "SNL" executive producer Lorne Michaels persuaded her to ride the show's hot hand. Her first appearance as the Alaskan governor two weeks ago was a huge hit, helping boost the premiere's ratings and garnering attention online.Fey wasn't the only former cast member who returned Saturday night. Chris Parnell came back to play presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer in a sketch that parodied Friday night's contest between McCain and Democratic rival Barack Obama -- which occurred less than 27 hours earlier than the live "SNL" broadcast.The sketch mainly played up McCain's attempts to shake up the debate process, as Darrell Hammond's McCain urged his opponent to join him in "nude or seminude" town hall meetings.At the outset, Parnell announced: "Throughout the debate, I will urge you both to look at one another up to and beyond the point it becomes uncomfortable."

Dx 10/12/2001, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/8 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2-

I'm not an economics expert by any means, but I don't agree that the bailout plan is subsidizing investors at taxpayer's expense.  I think that's how it's being presented but that's very simplistic and not wholly the truth.  The fact of the matter is that taxpayers - average American citizens -  have been major players in this crisis.  Yes, the banks provided easy credit, but it doesn't take a genius to know that if you earn $60k a year, you probably can't really afford a $600k house.  Similarly, it doesn't take a genius to know that if your debt significantly exceeds your income, you are living well beyond your means in a way that is not sustainable over the long-term.  While certainly not all taxpayers have participated in the creation of this crisis, a good percent have. 

And now comes the problem.  The housing market declines, people default on the homes that they should never have bought in the first place, the banks take over the homes, they can't sell them and have to devalue them on their books, and this reduces the value of the banks' assets and ties up the banks' cash.  So now there is not enough money to loan businesses and the average American citizen (who still has piles of debt) and this stalls the American economy.  Since the American economy and American purchasing power fuels the world economy, this puts the entire world into financial crisis.  And it's all because there was too much easy credit provided to the average American citizen. 

Investors are certainly impacted when the banks fail and when the economy stalls, but it wasn't the investors who created this crisis.  Did they benefit while all that easy credit was out there and the banks were growing?  Sure, but the average citizen benefitted too.   And it was the average citizen who actually was at the heart of the problem, not the greed of the investors.  This bailout is needed so that the banks can be relieved of this debt so that they can again make cash available to American businesses and American citizens.  This will benefit the average American.  And that will get the economy moving, which hopefully will drive confidence into the markets globally and stop the bleeding of the stock markets worldwide.  If this happens, investors will be saved from huge losses, although even if this happens, there likely will still be a recession or major slowdown, so investors certainly won't be 'winning' or making a whole lot on their investments.  They just won't be losing everything.  

A couple of other points.  Let's remember who these 'investors' are.  It's the average citizen who put his retirement savings into mutual funds and the institutions that control the 401k funds of these average citizens.  If the market is not saved, everybody goes down.  Let's also remember that if executed properly, this bailout will be a loan, a loan that has the potential to pay out very well.  If the economy picks up and the housing market recovers - not to the old levels but better than it is today - the government has the opportunity to significantly profit from this loan. 

A final point.  Despite everything I've said, I don't know that the bailout itself is what's necessary.  I just know that something has to be done.  A simpler approach might have been to change the regulation that required the banks to write down their assets to market value.  It's the devaluation of all this housing inventory that's driving the current crisis.  So I'm not necessarily supporting the bailout but I think it's wrong to suggest that everything is being done to help investors.  Investors aren't the cause of the problem and they aren't the beneficiaries of the solution.  They are the collateral damage in this whole thing.

Guys, I have been busy so not here much.

I, too, though have noticed how the LEFT people here, over on the other thread, have been using the word "vagina" to talk about Sarah Palin.  I find it quite odd for Amy to do this and yet I have seen it time and again to use this derogatory-speak against her. Regardless of whether or not we agree with another's political points of view does not mean it's ok to be tactless.  On the same par would be to refer to Obama as a "token black man" ... to mean that Obama is only there because he is black.  How stupid is that?  I don't like Obama but race has nothing to do with it just as I suppose the majority of Dems feel ...  we all feel like we have our BEST candidates up for nomination, not token personas.

I am quite disturbed about the comedy sketches regarding Palin. Making fun of someone highlights purported  weaknesses.  I wish some unbiased news would be out to talk about strengths.

And really, I am not tied to Palin. If McCain took her out to get a financial wizard on board, I'd be behind that.  

What I don't understand is why the candidates don't tell us who their whole team is going to be. Like if McCain said he had Hillary or Bill on board to do something.  And that if he had Bloomberg on board to be in charge of some financial reform policies.  Why don't they tell us who they plan to have in their cabinet?  I think we would have a better idea of what you get if you knew who was going to be Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Defense, etc, etc. 

.

Linda,

You can send whatever critters you'd like to Houston as long as they know how to swim.  I'm not pulling one more thing out of my pool.  If one goose came by we'd have it out of the sky in no time flat.  They seem to bypass us.

For whatever this is worth, I heard on the radio that we are buying those mortgage securities at .65 cents on the dollar.  If that's still true, and we hold the securities, they'll have value in the future.  This is such a mess.

Can someone explain to me why the congress has hearings if they're not going to pay attention to the whistle blowers who are coming in to give testimony?   This whole thing sickens me.  Then all I see is the democrats running to the mics to say, Obama really brokered the deal, from his cell phone, no less.  I can't do this anymore.  If people want to fall for that, then they deserve all the government they're about to pay for.  The problem is, we don't deserve this kind of lying democrat government.  We didn't put them there

Anyway, Sarah is on Couric again this evening.  I will watch it. 

From what I'm hearing, the bill didn't pass because of Pelosi running her mouth about the Republicans being unpatriotic, and some other very unprofessional comments to the press about the Republicans.  I don't know if that is true, but considering the dems put us into this mess in the first place, they sure made a show of throwing blame on Bush, who asked 17 times for the congress to act on the cooking of the books at Freddie and Fannie.

The dems are getting to the mics, and people are gullible.  There has to be some type of crap in that bill that will reward some earmark, or do something that isn't in our best interest coming from the dems.  I can't trust them anymore.  There's more to this.