Sarah Palin resigns as Governor

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Strongbow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Strongbow said:
The United States has never invaded a country with nuclear weaponry.
Click to expand...
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.
Strongbow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
martha said:
Gimme a nice long post then about how the Taliban emerged from the groups the US was supporting.
Click to expand...


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.
 
PhilsFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
[FONT=&quot]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.
[/FONT]
 
PhilsFan said:
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.
[FONT=&quot]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.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

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:

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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
PhilsFan said:
You're an idiot. You're going on my ignore list. I hope never to speak to you on the board again.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
There are so many things that are unfunny and plain offensive on Family Guy, I know I should just not even watch it.


.............but ...............

There is usually one joke in every episode that makes me laugh out loud, and that makes it worth the rest of it.

Right now I'm watching a rerun of an episode I've never seen, where Peter is obsessed with the song "Surfin' Bird," and it's making me laugh pretty hard.

BIRD BIRD BIRD! BIRD IS THE WORD!
 
I can't wait until Rush Limbaugh says he thought Family Guy was totally in the right and Sarah says that's fine because it's satire.
 
nice:

In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life. My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Governor Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes.
Click to expand...

:up:
 
anitram said:
Turns out that the actress who did the voiceover in the Family Guy episode has Down Syndrome (and a rather prolific acting career). Turns out she also thinks Sarah Palin is full of shit. Imagine.

palingates: Andrea Friedman, actress from "Family Guy" sets the record straight after Sarah Palin's Facebook rant - UPDATE
Click to expand...

That's Corky's gf :) I shouldn't be old enough to know that but I am..

Her parents raised her very well, to have her own opinion and to speak her mind. Is Sarah going to take her on now?
 
anitram said:
Turns out that the actress who did the voiceover in the Family Guy episode has Down Syndrome (and a rather prolific acting career). Turns out she also thinks Sarah Palin is full of shit. Imagine.

palingates: Andrea Friedman, actress from "Family Guy" sets the record straight after Sarah Palin's Facebook rant - UPDATE
Click to expand...

THAT is a thing of beauty.

PhilsFan said:
It appears not only that Mr. MacFarlane is a political man, but a calculating one at that.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing myself. Total set up. Well done.
 
Yes I think Gov Palin walked right into that one


by Vicky Iovine

Does Sarah wake up every day, reach for her specs, slip in her "Bumpit" and begin snorting around the media outlets like a truffle pig in search of the juicy fungus of persecution? It's like an itch that she scratches so often it has become a tic. Every slight is personal in the All About Me Universe of Alaska's Governor, Interrupted. Nothing is too random or private or just plain irrelevant for her to rush to Facebook with her righteous censure.

Just in case it wasn't clear from her book, Going Rogue, her skin is so thin that it's practically transparent. Nothing is her fault or worthy of private reflection. Let's face it folks, she and her family are pretty broad targets. If it's not her, it's her husband, her baby son or one of her daughters. None of us has a family above a dig here or a joke there, nor are we consistent examples of righteousness, but we are infinitely more relaxed about our imperfections. She wouldn't beg for a wedgie every time the class clown walked by if she weren't so delusional about her own perfection. Who can avoid, intentionally or not, taking a swipe at such a humorless and bitter prig? And who can fail to be bored blind (oh, God, I hope she doesn't take this as an attack on her own optical disability!)

I, for one, wonder why she chose to take on last Sunday's "Family Guy" as an attack on her little boy, Trig, who has Down's Syndrome. First of all, the character who was supposed to be representing Sarah's baby boy was a grown woman on a date. If Sarah weren't so myopic in her outrage, she might just as easily have taken the fact that the character described her parents as "the former governor of Alaska and an accountant" as a compliment.

What, Todd Palin, former "First Dude," prizewinning snowmobiler and North Slope oil pipeline manager, an accountant? Didn't Sarah recognize the erroneous inflation of her husband's education as a gift horse? No, because judging, condemning and calling for everyone's firing is much more suitable to her temperament.

In fact, it appears that she has a whole raft of people looking for statements, behavior or themes for her to identify and condemn. I'm willing to bet my DirecTV that she has never watched "Family Guy." Are you kidding? And miss "Desperate Housewives" and "Keeping Up With the Kardashians?" Not a chance!

On Facebook, she credited America's favorite baby mama, Bristol, with bringing the TV episode to her attention. God bless, Mother Sarah; in spite of feeling "kicked in the stomach" by the cartoon, she turned the repugnant experience into a teaching moment for her daughter: "Well, Bristol, how did it make YOU feel?"

Personally, I'd rather hear how Trig feels. At least he's justifiably uninformed (for his AGE, people--don't turn on me here!) and completely uninterested in seeking the worst in every "liberal" with name recognition.

Don't these Palins have real jobs? Or is that Sarah's job -- being humorless and vindictive for her Mad Hatter's Tea Party friends? As if the dormouse and the March Hare weren't enough to put a person off such gatherings. "Off with their heads!" she decries so consistently that she makes the Queen of Hearts look benevolent.

What if she actually were to become President? What an irritation it would be to have the Middle East, Haiti, global warming and a blighted economy distracting her from her meticulous search for the worst intentions in everybody. And who really cares about those big issues anyway? They're so complicated and so irrelevant to burnishing the image of our little Maverick.

Life is short, Sarah. It is delicious, shocking and flawed. It's your choice: Revel in it or bitch it to death. But if you insist on choosing the latter, please, keep it to yourself. Nothing personal.
 
A bit too harsh for my liking, but I agree on the general point that Palin's humourless and takes EVERYTHING way too personal.
 
mikal said:
i love Family Guy, incase any of you were wondering.
Click to expand...

I was

I watched some of a marathon of this show (Secret Life) last year because I was curious about it. It just doesn't seem very realistic to me, the way they all talk and some of the things they do..it's like Gilmore Girls on crack. Maybe it's just that I'm so out of touch with teenagers

NEW YORK – Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol will make her acting debut on the ABC Family drama series, "The Secret Life of the American Teenager."

The network says the 19-year-old will play herself on an episode scheduled to shoot and air this summer. It will deal with the consequences of teen pregnancy.

The network calls Bristol Palin the most famous teenage mother in America. She was pregnant as her mother campaigned for vice president. Bristol Palin gave birth to her son, Tripp, in December 2008.

The TV series focuses on the relationships between families and friends and how they deal with teenage issues. It premiered two years ago, and its cast includes Molly Ringwald and Mark Derwin.
 
Well, it's a cartoon with a talking dog and a talking baby. I'd say anyone looking for realistic was barking up a tree so wrong, it wasn't even a tree. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
907
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
KhanadaRhodes
  • Sticky
Guntersville, Alabama Superthread
Replies
3
Views
2K
bono_man2002
bono_man2002
MrsSpringsteen
Police Brutality Against 73 Year Old Woman With Dementia
Replies
4
Views
574
dazzledbylight
dazzledbylight
gump
Spellling - The Turning Wheel
Replies
5
Views
603
bono_212
bono_212
MrsSpringsteen
SoHo Racist Karen
Replies
5
Views
920
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom