Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Russia was determined to they could indeed march into Kiev,


but they're not. there's no reason for it. the costs would be enormous. Russia is not the Soviet Union, it is not the reconstituting Russian Empire.

it's an autocratic petro-state that isn't stupid.

it must be dealt with by someone who understands the world, understands nuance, is calm, cool, collected, who isn't going to think Putin's a swell guy because he wears a cross the first time he meets a gullible born-again like Bush, and by someone who doesn't write hysterical op-eds the day after Russia throws some of it's weight around.

or maybe you'd prefer to invoke the Bush Doctrine here and take care of Russia before they can threaten and dominate the world's oil supplies. you might be right in that Putin is a threat to global peace and a threat to his neighbors and region. how many WMDs does Russia have that are unaccounted for?

there is no other choice but to invade Russia and overthrow Putin and bring democracy to Russia. it wouldn’t cost us much. they’ve got enough oil to pay for their own reconstruction. and i'm sure we’d probably be greeted as liberators. i bet it would be a cakewalk.
 
I was taken aback by this ad by a 527.

Showed it to my 59 year old father, who has hunted throughout his life. His first response was "shooting animals from planes in the snow isn't hunting" and his second was "this woman is sick." Then he said he was going to walk his beloved dog.

YouTube - Brutal

I remember when Cheney almost murdered someone while on a hunt a few years back, a number of real hunters pointed out that the activity Cheney and his group was engaged in wasn't proper hunting, it was basically a duck shoot where even someone with no co-ordination at all will bag likely a few dozen birds.

I honestly think neo-conservatism is a pathological or psychopathic disorder of some sort, a lot of these neo-con types are literally criminal psychopaths and seem to revel in activities such as killing animals, invading small countries, etc.
 
but they're not. there's no reason for it. the costs would be enormous. Russia is not the Soviet Union, it is not the reconstituting Russian Empire.

it's an autocratic petro-state that isn't stupid.

it must be dealt with by someone who understands the world, understands nuance, is calm, cool, collected, who isn't going to think Putin's a swell guy because he wears a cross the first time he meets a gullible born-again like Bush, and by someone who doesn't write hysterical op-eds the day after Russia throws some of it's weight around.

Ironically, the whole reason why Biden is on the ticket is because Obama clearly does not get it when it comes to Russia. The events in Georgia over the past 3 months have proven McCain's stance on Russia to be correct.

Oh, and your point earlier was not that the Russian's would not march into Kiev, but that they couldn't even if they tried. It is open to debate whether or not Russia under their current leadership wants to reimpose control on states of the former Soviet Union and rebuild the Russian Empire. Ukraine has looked at this national security question and has decided that they need to get into NATO as soon as possible. All of the Eastern European countries are united in supporting Ukraine and Georgia's membership into NATO.

Everyone in the NATO alliance recognizes that Russia still poses a threat to Europe and the only thing that is stupid is to ignore that and not prepare for it. The likely hood of Russian expansionism will drop if the US and NATO remain firm and don't attempt to appease Russia by letting it have some special sphere of influence in regards to the independent countries of the former Soviet Union.
 
Ironically, the whole reason why Biden is on the ticket is because Obama clearly does not get it when it comes to Russia. The events in Georgia over the past 3 months have proven McCain's stance on Russia to be correct.

Most serious observers believe that Georgia was the aggressor.


Everyone in the NATO alliance recognizes that Russia still poses a threat to Europe and the only thing that is stupid is to ignore that and not prepare for it. The likely hood of Russian expansionism will drop if the US and NATO remain firm and don't attempt to appease Russia by letting it have some special sphere of influence in regards to the independent countries of the former Soviet Union.



Russia already has a sphere of influence in that part of the world, and the whole 'US as world policeman meme' is a busted flush. You might as well accustom yourself to these basic facts, as they ain't changing any time soon.
 
Most serious observers believe that Georgia was the aggressor.

Name a few who are not anti-NATO expansion, Putin Appeasers, or Russians.

Plus if you take a look at Russian military activity before the conflict, that tells you everything you need to know about who is really responsible.

Russia already has a sphere of influence in that part of the world, and the whole 'US as world policeman meme' is a busted flush. You might as well accustom yourself to these basic facts, as they ain't changing any time soon.

No one here is talking about the United States being a world policeman. NATO does not accept any sort of Russian sphere of influence in which they dominate and control what are supposed to be independent and democratic countries.

Estonia, Latvia, and Luthunia, former Soviet Republics are already in NATO. NATO expansion has been the reality now for over a decade. Its about time Russia woke up to this reality and accepted it.
 
Re: The Bush Doctrine, since Palin couldn't give a good answer...

To this day it amazes me the number of people who either don't see or don't care about the ethical questions and implications that arise from the concept of 'preventative war'.

I am reminded of the film Minority Report, about a futuristic pre-crime system in which three pseudo-comatose humans have the gift of pre-cognition and can see crimes before they are committed, and the images they see in their head are transfered to cops, who then go and arrest the person in question before a crime is committed. The film centers around the ethical question of whether or not it is ok to arrest someone for a crime they haven't committed, just because you're almost certain they were going to.

It applies here. Despite all of the things Saddam was doing to his own people, he, and Iraq, never did anything to us to warrant an invasion. Therefore, there is a serious ethical question about the merits of invading a country that hasn't done anything to you. That doesn't mean you ignore it. You keep a close eye on their activities, you give special importance to any intelligence you get regarding the region(you know, instead of ignoring a briefing entitled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'), you be prepared to defend yourself should they try anything, and even be prepared to retaliate in the event that they succeed with anything and if there is absolutely no other course of action to take. But don't go invading them before they've done anything.

No, I think the Bush Doctrine is reactionary, reckless, and fear-based.
 
I also find it quite interesting that when faced with a question she didn't quite understand, the default is to basically back Bush 100%.

And here I thought she and McCain were campaigning for change in Washington... :hmm:
 
not to worry! for all the fretting that's going on over how Palin has embarrassed herself in the Charlie Gibson interview, damage control has already begun.

Ms. Palin will do her next interview with this guy:

2387543.jpg
 
IMO, that Defenders of Wildlife ad doesn't really mean very much without more info on ratios of wolves and bears to moose and caribou in the areas where the aerial gunning was carried out. It's illegal under federal law to shoot animals from planes for sport; they permit it only where the state in question has determined predator control measures are called for in specific area(s), and the shooting must be done by either state employees or licensed hunters who've been granted special permits for the purpose. Of course none of that automatically makes the Alaska measures in question unproblematic; again, you'd need to see data on predator-prey population ratios in the relevant areas, as well as on what percentages of moose and caribou are killed by wolves and bears as opposed to humans (e.g., are wolves being given a reasonable chance to compete with humans for caribou, or are we talking an egregious sop to hunters where wolf populations are being kept at near-endangerment levels to keep hunting-expedition businesses happy?).

At any rate I doubt this will be a major issue with many voters.
 
Last edited:
Oh goody. Get ready for some hard hitting, probing journalism. :rolleyes:


it will be interesting ... who will be more smug? who will be more self-satisfied? i'm pretty sure that it's going to be the viewer who is left unsatisfied by what is sure to be a Republican mutual masturbation session.
 
I also find it quite interesting that when faced with a question she didn't quite understand, the default is to basically back Bush 100%.

And here I thought she and McCain were campaigning for change in Washington... :hmm:

At the end of the day, all three still have the letter "R" next to their name.
 
I honestly think neo-conservatism is a pathological or psychopathic disorder of some sort, a lot of these neo-con types are literally criminal psychopaths and seem to revel in activities such as killing animals, invading small countries, etc.

lol. To me it's just a narcissistic utter disregard for anything that does not benefit their wallets and/or status.
 
I was taken aback by this ad by a 527.

Showed it to my 59 year old father, who has hunted throughout his life. His first response was "shooting animals from planes in the snow isn't hunting" and his second was "this woman is sick." Then he said he was going to walk his beloved dog.


:ohmy: Ohooo, THAT'S what that's about........ I hadn't paid the closest attention to that part of her beliefs (vs other things).

UGH......:mad: that's a relative slaughter, not a hunt.


Wolfs can be a problem in some cases, but they are an amazing social animal society.
 
IMO, that Defenders of Wildlife ad doesn't really mean very much without more info on ratios of wolves and bears to moose and caribou in the areas where the aerial gunning was carried out. It's illegal under federal law to shoot animals from planes for sport; they permit it only where the state in question has determined predator control measures are called for in specific area(s), and the shooting must be done by either state employees or licensed hunters who've been granted special permits for the purpose. Of course none of that automatically makes the Alaska measures in question unproblematic; again, you'd need to see data on predator-prey population ratios in the relevant areas, as well as on what percentages of moose and caribou are killed by wolves and bears as opposed to humans (e.g., are wolves being given a reasonable chance to compete with humans for caribou, or are we talking an egregious sop to hunters where wolf populations are being kept at near-endangerment levels to keep hunting-expedition businesses happy?).

At any rate I doubt this will be a major issue with many voters.

My understanding is that there was a wolf problem. I do not currently have the brain capacity to follow up on this.
 
JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONORABLE MAN WHO IS A STRAIGHT TALKER.

JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONORABLE MAN WHO IS A STRAIGHT TALKER.

JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONORABLE MAN WHO IS A STRAIGHT TALKER.

JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONORABLE MAN WHO IS A STRAIGHT TALKER.

JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONORABLE MAN WHO IS A STRAIGHT TALKER.

JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONORABLE MAN WHO IS A STRAIGHT TALKER.
:ohmy:

:hmm:
maybe if you typed that out 100,000 x's maaayyybbbeee I'd begin to have a shadow of a doubt that he's become a much less honorable man in these past 7 years or so.


then again......


MAYBE NOT!
 
Are these people for real??

Q: Can you honestly say you feel confident having someone who hasn’t traveled outside the United States until last year, dealing with an insurgent Russia...

MCCAIN: Sure...Alaska is right next to Russia. She understands that.

She concurs:

Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin told Gibson, "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

What a lunatic.
 
erm, she said -- on 9/11 of all days -- that the soldiers were going to IRAQ to



no one in Iraq "planned and carried out" the attacks of 9/11.

and if you want to be totally obtuse and claim that they're fighting AQI, well AQI didn't exist on 9/11, and in fact didn't exist until the US invaded Iraq.

there is no one in Iraq right now who had anything to do with 9/11.

What no one ever seems to figure out is that people like Palin and McCain think most Islamics are "terrorists" - therefore Iraq which is predominatly Islamic is a "terrorist state". I don't think people like us will ever be able to change minds like that.
 
^ It's the usual hysterical conflation of email chains with the blogosphere with the tabloids with the TV networks with the major newspapers, as if they were the Borg and moved in lockstep dictated from the (in this case) librul-feminist hive-mind.

Reminds me a bit of the contrived tantrum Bush Sr.'s campaign threw over the pounding Dan Quayle (another late-in-the-game 'shock' pick) got from the media, which they too milked for sympathy points, though there wasn't as much of a 'Card' to play in Quayle's case.
 
Last edited:
I want to know more about this wolf problem.

Are they like wolves with sharks tied to their backs?

And when the sharks open their mouths, they spit killer bees out?
 
No, it's worse than that, they have this nasty habit of surviving on moose and caribou, which people also like to hunt.
 
It applies here. Despite all of the things Saddam was doing to his own people, he, and Iraq, never did anything to us to warrant an invasion. Therefore, there is a serious ethical question about the merits of invading a country that hasn't done anything to you. That doesn't mean you ignore it. You keep a close eye on their activities, you give special importance to any intelligence you get regarding the region(you know, instead of ignoring a briefing entitled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'), you be prepared to defend yourself should they try anything, and even be prepared to retaliate in the event that they succeed with anything and if there is absolutely no other course of action to take. But don't go invading them before they've done anything.

No, I think the Bush Doctrine is reactionary, reckless, and fear-based.

The problem is that Saddam is not in that category. He had already invaded and attacked four of his neighbors unprovoked. Used WMD on his neighbors. After he invaded and attacked Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia in 1990-1991, he was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD in addition to other meeting other conditions of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement and multiple other UN resolutions. Whether or not there would be further military action against Saddam was dependent on his compliance with the UN resolutions stemming from his illegal invasion of Kuwait. He remained in violation of the resolutions and the ceacefire and the only means by which the international community could successfuly enforce the resolutions was through military force.

As Colin Powell said at the time, the Bush doctrine is primarily a restatement of past US security policy since the end of World War II.
 
^ It's the usual hysterical conflation of email chains with the blogosphere with the tabloids with the TV networks with the major newspapers, as if they were the Borg and moved in lockstep dictated from the (in this case) librul-feminist hive-mind.

Reminds me a bit of the contrived tantrum Bush Sr.'s campaign threw over the pounding Dan Quayle (another late-in-the-game 'shock' pick) got from the media, which they too milked for sympathy points, though there wasn't as much of a 'Card' to play in Quayle's case.

Ya ya ya...but it's working!!!!!!
 
i disagree with the current US position. proposing Georgia for membership in NATO reflects a blindness to the consequences of the first two rounds of NATO expansion and defies elementary strategic logic.

all it does is serve to bait the Russians and kill the strategic cooperation we're going to need from them to deal with Iran and North Korea. and the more Russia feels threatened, the more power Putin is free to consolidate.
Pin the quote on the candidate

"I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship,"
 
The problem is that Saddam is not in that category. He had already invaded and attacked four of his neighbors unprovoked. Used WMD on his neighbors. After he invaded and attacked Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia in 1990-1991, he was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD in addition to other meeting other conditions of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement and multiple other UN resolutions. Whether or not there would be further military action against Saddam was dependent on his compliance with the UN resolutions stemming from his illegal invasion of Kuwait. He remained in violation of the resolutions and the ceacefire and the only means by which the international community could successfuly enforce the resolutions was through military force.

As Colin Powell said at the time, the Bush doctrine is primarily a restatement of past US security policy since the end of World War II.

What I said was the Saddam never did anything to US. You have said nothing to disprove that. Whatever he did to his neighbors or to his own people is besides the point, it doesn't change the fact that he never did anything to us.
 
Pertinent article:

ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire
By MARTIN SIEFFPublished: Sept. 12, 2008 at 11:47 AMOrder reprints | Print Story | Email to a Friend | Post a Comment WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.

By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln.

Palin also expressed her support for Georgia and Ukraine joining the U.S.-led NATO alliance. That statement was predictable and consistent with the current policy of the Bush administration. The policy has dangerously raised tensions with Russia, but Palin is hardly alone in the conservative/Republican consensus in expressing her support for it.

Palin's assessment of foreign policy was competent and not embarrassing. Although she initially exhibited ignorance of the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive strikes that has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she recovered quickly and then made the case clearly. Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.

The double-standard Gibson applied to Palin, compared with the uncritical media platforms repeatedly offered to Obama, who has had zero executive experience running anything, was especially striking. ABC and Gibson focused on Palin as if she were running right now for the presidency rather than the vice presidency. He and other media pundits, by contrast, have never asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, if he has ever had to make a decision on anything.

Gibson's aggressive approach appeared to take Palin by surprise: He was clearly attempting to put her on point by presenting her as having extreme religious views. This again, however, appears to be a double-standard, as Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God, one of the largest Christian denominations in America with 16 million members, and is now a member of the Wasilla Bible Church. Even now, Obama has yet to receive any comparable grilling on his 20-year attendance in the congregation of the notoriously racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The focus on Palin's faith and family, as well as the controversy over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment in Virginia earlier this week, confirmed the swift demise of civility in the 2008 presidential campaign. This is especially ironic, as both Obama and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, owed their victories over Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in the Democratic primary race and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the GOP one to their perceived inclusive tolerance, uplift and vision compared with their main opponents.

In the long sweep of U.S. political history, the worst dirt that has been thrown at either of the presidential candidates pales compared with the claims that Thomas Jefferson had fathered a child by a black slave in the 1800 campaign -- the newspaper editor who published the accusations eventually was found dead floating in a canal -- or the false claims by Republicans in the 1944 campaign that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was senile. FDR by that point was indeed a dying man, though he did not know it, but he was mentally as sharp as ever.

The context of the increasingly desperate -- and ugly -- attacks on Palin and her alleged lack of experience is that the Obama bandwagon, which swept all before it from the Iowa caucuses through the end of June, is now stalling badly and, even more worrying for the Democrats, the malaise may be spreading to the congressional races.

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll has the Democrats only 3 points up on the Republicans on the question of which party people would vote for today in their congressional district.

Indeed, the Obama campaign is now saying it is ready to take the gloves off against McCain. They rolled out a new ad Friday mocking McCain as out of touch and old-fashioned, even though it was McCain who picked a young woman as a running mate while Obama opted for an old white guy who's been sitting in the Senate for 36 years. With more than 50 days still to go until the actual election, it appears dangerously early in the campaign for the Obama camp to go negative, especially as so much of his appeal has been based on rising above the old negatives to begin with. Isn't it early in the campaign to resort to that? Is it a sign of panic?

Whatever her inexperience and other shortcomings, Palin did not fall into that trap in her ABC interview. At no point did she appear fearful or threatening. Gibson's aggressive questioning on her religion and her son's coming military service in Iraq, by contrast, runs the risks for the Democrats of strengthening support for Palin among working-class, married women, especially those with husbands or sons serving in the military.

The pattern of previous presidential election interviews and debates has always been that individuals who come across as intellectually superior, arrogant and condescending forfeit support that goes to their perceived victims. This dynamic played a crucial role in propelling George W. Bush into the White House eight years ago. It remains to be seen if Gibson's perceived arrogance and condescension will give Palin another boost. It certainly didn't help the Democrats that ABC's chief political correspondent, Stephanopoulos, who had rushed to Obama's aid only four days before, was wheeled on to discuss her interview with Gibson as soon as it was concluded.

Liberal Democrats predictably will cite the interview as evidence that Palin is not prepared for the vice presidency. Republicans will equally predictably cite it as evidence that she is. How centrist voters will react to it remains to be seen. One thing is clear: This isn't a transformational election on either side. Whoever wins, the ugly old cultural and political divisions in America remain -- and they are deeper than ever..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom