Sarah Palin resigns as Governor - Page 63 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-11-2010, 10:54 PM   #931
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
What you quoted was about the strategy for combating terrorism NOT a strategy for combating the proliferation of WMD.

He does not mention anything about a strategy for combating the proliferation of WMD in the quote you posted. He is talking about terrorism only in that quote.

You do understand that the proliferation of WMD among countries and terrorism and the strategy for dealing with terrorism are on the surface two different things?

Although the spread of WMD could effect the capabilities available to terrorist.
I KNOW THAT THE QUOTE SAYS IT'S ABOUT COMBATING TERRORISM! THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF CONTEXT, WHICH IS WHY I GAVE YOU THE CONTEXT!

This is the dishonesty I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The United States has never invaded a country with nuclear weaponry.
I'm aware. He was responding to a question posed about nuclear weaponry. He based his answer upon Iraq because Bush assumed Iraq had nuclear weapons or other similarly powerful weapons. Which is, as I said, completely different from Afghanistan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Pakistan and Russia do have nuclear weapons.

2. The Obama administration does consider Iran to be a different case than Pakistan or Russia. The Obama administration is not threatening sanctions against Pakistan or Russia because they have nuclear weapons. They are also not keeping the "military option" on the table because Pakistan and Russia have nuclear weapons.

3. The Obama administration has never ruled out the use of military force in protecting the country and the world from the spread of WMD.

4. So, not only does John Stewart not agree with the Obama administration on how to combat terrorism, he does not agree with the Obama administration on how to combat WMD proliferation or the nature of threat posed by countries such as Iran, Russia, and Pakistan.
1. In the hypothetical O'Reilly posed, he assumed that Iran would complete the nuclear weapons he believes them to be capable of.

2. OK? I'm not disputing that.

3. I don't expect him to rule it out. But I also don't expect him to massively overreact like Bush did with Iraq.

4. All he said was that you can't invade a country simply because they potentially have nuclear weapons because he believes that those countries have, in his words, "a self-preservationist streak." Which I agree with.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:05 PM   #932
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Gimme a nice long post then about how the Taliban emerged from the groups the US was supporting.

US support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan ended when the last Soviet troops left the country in February 1989. The formation of the Taliban happened years later along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area. There are some leaders in the Taliban that were apart of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets in the 1980s and obviously benefited during the 1980s from US aid. But again, that aid ended in 1989, years before the Taliban started to form, and years before they were ever apart of it.

Some of the groups the US supported later became apart of the Northern Alliance. Others simply stayed or returned to their local areas. Then there were some that joined the Taliban as it grew in power. Its a tribal culture and what is in ones immediate best interest or survival often wins out.

You can't really argue that aiding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the 1980s helped create the Taliban, but you could certainly argue that the US abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets left in 1989 played a role in creating the conditions or environment there that helped the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:24 PM   #933
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I KNOW THAT THE QUOTE SAYS IT'S ABOUT COMBATING TERRORISM! THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF CONTEXT, WHICH IS WHY I GAVE YOU THE CONTEXT!

This is the dishonesty I'm talking about.
The context is irrelevant given that preventing or combating the proliferation of WMD and combating terrorism are two different things!

No one is being dishonest here.

Quote:
I'm aware. He was responding to a question posed about nuclear weaponry. He based his answer upon Iraq because Bush assumed Iraq had nuclear weapons or other similarly powerful weapons. Which is, as I said, completely different from Afghanistan.
But in the quote he is not talking about nuclear weaponry. He is talking about a strategy for combating terrorism. Thats a different subject matter and applies directly to the situation in Afghanistan.

By the way, Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons. Bush used military force against Saddam's Iraq because of its failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire agreement.


Quote:
3. I don't expect him to rule it out. But I also don't expect him to massively overreact like Bush did with Iraq.
Bush did not overreact when it came to Iraq. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD by the United Nations or face the use of military force to accomplish that goal.

Quote:
4. All he said was that you can't invade a country simply because they potentially have nuclear weapons because he believes that those countries have, in his words, "a self-preservationist streak." Which I agree with.
Well, the Obama administration has reserved to right to use military force in such situations.

Iraq by the way was required by multiple UN resolutions to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face military force to do that. The United Nations has in the past approved the use of military force in such situations. It approved the use of military force by the Clinton administration against Saddam during the 1990s because of his violations of the UN resolutions in regards to these matters and it approved the use of military force by the Bush administration as well when it came to Saddam and his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:30 PM   #934
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 06:44 AM
O'Reilly: Now, Iran's building nuclear weapons over there, and if they get 'em, they might give 'em to some guy named Achmed, who might then take 'em to Cleveland and blow everything up. So, what are we gonna do with that?
Stewart: Well, doesn't Pakistan have nuclear weapons?
O'Reilly: Yes, they do.
Stewart: Couldn't they give it to somebody?
O'Reilly: I don't know. I don’t think-
Stewart: Doesn't Russia have nuclear weapons?
O'Reilly: Yes.
Stewart: Couldn't they give it to somebody?
O'Reilly: Yes.
Stewart: The problem isn't the country that gets them. The problem seems to be the weapon. I think the strategy of ... what we've done, and again, thank you guys for ratcheting up the fear on this-
O'Reilly: You're not afraid that Iran gets a nuclear weapon and they cause all kinds of havoc?
Stewart: There’s a lot of things to be afraid of in the world.
O’Reilly: You’re a Jewish guy, right? […] I believe the president of Iran wants to drive you and all the other Jewish people into the sea.
Stewart: I cannot control that. I cannot control what those things are.
O’Reilly: What we can control is … is, we can stop them!
Stewart: No. Here’s the thing: you might be able to stop them from having a nuclear weapon, but as technology grows and becomes more accessible to people, this is going to become an increasingly difficult problem, and here’s what we can’t do-
O’Reilly: Alright, what can’t we do?
Stewart: Our strategy for battling terrorism can’t be that you overthrow governments, and then make the United States military commit 150,000 troops to those lands until they can somehow stabilize the governments long enough so you can prevent 10 people from plotting destruction in a basement.
O’Reilly: I agree with that. It’s bankrupting the country
Stewart: It’s bankrupting the country. It’s the wrong-
O’Reilly: But you just don’t seem that concerned about Iran. You just don’t seem that concerned about it.
Stewart: Because Iran, like most of these other countries, has a self-preservationist streak. And I’m a firm believer that that self-preservationist streak keeps them … there’s no theory of mutual destruction with Iran. Let’s say they get one off. It would be tragic, they-
O’Reilly: How would we trace it? We’d never trace it.
Stewart: Oh, please. That’s absolutely wrong.
O’Reilly: They can’t even question the underwear bomber. They can’t get a guy with underwear and they can’t get the answers.
Stewart: See, even that, that’s a completely false narrative. Let’s look at the geniuses we’re up against. Richard Reid was the airplane bomber. He tried to take that explosive and put it in his shoes. It took them eight years, and the plan they came up with was, “Uh, let’s put it under that guy’s genitals.” That’s what they did in eight years! They moved from the guy’s shoes to the guy’s underwear.

Maybe now you'll understand.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:34 PM   #935
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Pfan, it's not worth the effort.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:43 PM   #936
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
O'Reilly: Now, Iran's building nuclear weapons over there, and if they get 'em, they might give 'em to some guy named Achmed, who might then take 'em to Cleveland and blow everything up. So, what are we gonna do with that?
Stewart: Well, doesn't Pakistan have nuclear weapons?
O'Reilly: Yes, they do.
Stewart: Couldn't they give it to somebody?
O'Reilly: I don't know. I don’t think-
Stewart: Doesn't Russia have nuclear weapons?
O'Reilly: Yes.
Stewart: Couldn't they give it to somebody?
O'Reilly: Yes.
Stewart: The problem isn't the country that gets them. The problem seems to be the weapon. I think the strategy of ... what we've done, and again, thank you guys for ratcheting up the fear on this-
O'Reilly: You're not afraid that Iran gets a nuclear weapon and they cause all kinds of havoc?
Stewart: There’s a lot of things to be afraid of in the world.
O’Reilly: You’re a Jewish guy, right? […] I believe the president of Iran wants to drive you and all the other Jewish people into the sea.
Stewart: I cannot control that. I cannot control what those things are.
O’Reilly: What we can control is … is, we can stop them!
Stewart: No. Here’s the thing: you might be able to stop them from having a nuclear weapon, but as technology grows and becomes more accessible to people, this is going to become an increasingly difficult problem, and here’s what we can’t do-
O’Reilly: Alright, what can’t we do?
Stewart: Our strategy for battling terrorism can’t be that you overthrow governments, and then make the United States military commit 150,000 troops to those lands until they can somehow stabilize the governments long enough so you can prevent 10 people from plotting destruction in a basement.
O’Reilly: I agree with that. It’s bankrupting the country
Stewart: It’s bankrupting the country. It’s the wrong-
O’Reilly: But you just don’t seem that concerned about Iran. You just don’t seem that concerned about it.
Stewart: Because Iran, like most of these other countries, has a self-preservationist streak. And I’m a firm believer that that self-preservationist streak keeps them … there’s no theory of mutual destruction with Iran. Let’s say they get one off. It would be tragic, they-
O’Reilly: How would we trace it? We’d never trace it.
Stewart: Oh, please. That’s absolutely wrong.
O’Reilly: They can’t even question the underwear bomber. They can’t get a guy with underwear and they can’t get the answers.
Stewart: See, even that, that’s a completely false narrative. Let’s look at the geniuses we’re up against. Richard Reid was the airplane bomber. He tried to take that explosive and put it in his shoes. It took them eight years, and the plan they came up with was, “Uh, let’s put it under that guy’s genitals.” That’s what they did in eight years! They moved from the guy’s shoes to the guy’s underwear.

Maybe now you'll understand.
It just shows that Stewart jumped basically to a different topic. They started talking about Iran and nuclear weapons and the subject matter of the spread of WMD, then this qoute by Stewart:

Quote:
Stewart: Our strategy for battling terrorism can’t be that you overthrow governments, and then make the United States military commit 150,000 troops to those lands until they can somehow stabilize the governments long enough so you can prevent 10 people from plotting destruction in a basement.

That qoute is the opposite of what the Obama administration feels is the right strategy for combating terrorism.

The Obama administration is also focused on the country first and not the weapon. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Russians is one thing, but in the hands of the Iranians is an entirely different situation because of that countries past behavior. John Stewart does not understand that, but so far the Obama administration does.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:46 PM   #937
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 06:44 AM
You're an idiot. You're going on my ignore list. I hope never to speak to you on the board again.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 12:06 AM   #938
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
You're an idiot. You're going on my ignore list. I hope never to speak to you on the board again.
Here we go again. I discuss the issues, you don't like what I say about the issues and resort to childish name calling which has nothing to do with the issues.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:44 PM   #939
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 12:44 PM
the issue is that Palin is a wingnut
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 02-17-2010, 11:54 AM   #940
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:44 AM
By Becky Bohrer, Associated Press Writer

JUNEAU, Alaska — Sarah Palin is lashing out at the portrayal of a character with Down syndrome on the Fox animated comedy Family Guy. In a Facebook posting headlined "Fox Hollywood — What a Disappointment," the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and current Fox News contributor said Sunday night's episode felt like "another kick in the gut." Palin's youngest son, Trig, has Down syndrome.

The episode features the character Chris falling for a girl with Down syndrome. On a date, he asks what her parents do.

She replies: "My dad's an accountant, and my mom is the former governor of Alaska."

Palin resigned as Alaska governor last summer.

Palin's oldest daughter, Bristol, also was quoted on her mother's Facebook page, calling the show's writers "heartless jerks."

"When you're the son or daughter of a public figure, you have to develop thick skin. My siblings and I all have that, but insults directed at our youngest brother hurt too much for us to remain silent," she is quoted as saying.

"If the writers of a particularly pathetic cartoon show thought they were being clever in mocking my brother and my family yesterday, they failed," Bristol Palin added in the Monday posting. "All they proved is that they're heartless jerks."

Palin wrote that she'd asked her daughter what she thought of the show and Bristol's reply was "a much more restrained and gracious statement than I want to make about an issue that begs the question: When is enough enough?"

This isn't the first time Palin has spoken out over an attack, real or perceived, on her family. Last year, she condemned a joke David Letterman made about her daughter, for which he later apologized.

A Family Guy publicist didn't immediately return an e-mail seeking comment.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-17-2010, 12:01 PM   #941
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:44 AM
It's Family Guy, they attack everything and everyone...

Heartless jerks? Maybe but they've never claimed otherwise.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-17-2010, 06:44 PM   #942
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,700
Local Time: 03:44 AM
What I find interesting is that while there may have been tasteless stuff within the episode (and it's Family Guy, so this should not be a surprise to anyone), the character herself wasn't any sort of jab against Palin's son or disabled people in general.

The only Plain joke was a one-off that her mom was the former governor of Alaska. But the character was obviously not supposed to be Trig, considering it was a) a girl; and b) a teenager.

From what I understand (full disclosure: I didn't see the episode, have only read about it), the character was actually a strong-willed, kind of mean person, a tweak to the Down's syndrome stereotype that all people with Down's are sweet and cuddly and gentle little souls, that sort of thing.

Sarah sure took their tiny line of bait.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-17-2010, 08:54 PM   #943
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Sarah never saw The Ringer, then.


And I can't stand Family Guy, just for the record.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-17-2010, 10:36 PM   #944
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 12:44 AM
wouldn't this count as satire?
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 02-17-2010, 10:39 PM   #945
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,700
Local Time: 03:44 AM
It's only satire when people on your side do it.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Obama got elected....... boosterjuice Free Your Mind 200 12-01-2008 12:07 PM
2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11 purpleoscar Free Your Mind Archive 1010 11-04-2008 06:27 PM
The Rumor / FactCheck Thread Dreadsox Free Your Mind 25 10-21-2008 09:49 PM
so...Mike Huckabee. Harry Vest Free Your Mind Archive 493 02-06-2008 10:01 AM
AdamPorn elizabeth PLEBA Archive 63 12-12-2001 02:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com