SG
Yes, this is the core issue...so did George Bush say " Today I want to kill Iraqi babies"? Or did he say that "Saddam must be taken out and the heck with collateral damage"? Or did he say " Saddam has killed a million of his countrymen, has not responded to 17 U.N. resolutions, has attempted to kill my father, invaded his neighboring country ,threatened his other neighbors and while I regret doing so, I believe this is the best course of action" ?While maybe not exactly, I think the 3rd one is closer than the 1st one.[/quote]Oh, I think outside the Republican right the second is more widely accepted...the third option you offer is twaddle Jim..you know it, we all know it, a twisting of the truth to justify murder.. You are making a qualitative judgment that asks whose bombs are better, ours or theirs. The truth is neither.The intent to invade and bugger the collateral damage is the reality. So back to George Bush saying " Today I want to kill Iraqi babies"? and the question I posed still stands.
SG
SG- you may feel that Obama's choice was well thought out but many don't. Do I really need to link to all the democratic sites that have panned his pick?[/quote]Jim, panning Obamas choice, and condemning McCain's choice as the corrupt political pandering that is is are such vastly different things I can't believe you posted this. McCain's choice was a morally corrupt confirmation that winning, on behalf of the corporate interest groups that he represents takes precedence over the position and responsibilities of the job he is going for. It is utterly morally bankrupt and a cynical snipe at the people of America. The Germans talked of German superiority, that americans were soft and easy to kill. When the battles became intense, the americans were prepared mentally for the challenge...the Germans much less so..."How could these soft americans be matching us or even beating us?" The author's opinion was that it was better to accurately portray your opponent. I think you are doing yourself a disservice if you underestimate Palin.[/quote]You need to read a few WW2 histories Jim. It's a hobby of mine and German defeat had little to do with 'soft americans be matching us or even beating us'. The American advantage was always overwhelming firepower, although no-one is disputing American courage at the likes of Omaha Beach. However it was an ongoing issue for American commanders afterwards that their troops simply wouldn't advance unless overwhelming firepower had smashed enemy forces, and even then it was often hard to get them to move. Throughout the ETO American troops remained soft until the end when put against Germans on a one to one basis. Even if it was true this time there has been too many cries of wolf. Sarah Palin isn't any dumber than the normal politician and just saying it doesn't make it so. Don't underestimate her intelligence.[/quote]I don't have to underestimate Palin, she, herself provides the ammunition, as the ABC interview made obvious. She is not fit for the job..end of story. So why would someone put her up for it. It seems to be the question of the day on the networks after the ABC story. As the Washington Post said...the interviewer was more presidential than her, would provide a better VP candidate.I see the next interview is with Sean Hannity..they really are scared of letting her out there aren't they?
Bert Vierstra
I don't have to underestimate Palin, she, herself provides the ammunition, as the ABC interview made obvious. She is not fit for the job..end of story. So why would someone put her up for it. It seems to be the question of the day on the networks after the ABC story. As the Washington Post said...the interviewer was more presidential than her, would provide a better VP candidate.[/quote]So true.
milan
As the Washington Post said...the interviewer was more presidential than her, would provide a better VP candidate.[/quote]What???!!! :shock: :shock: Gibson wasn't even sure what Bush Doctrine is as he quoted only one of them and although there are some traps, Palin didn't fall into it. He was rather condiscending asking her to face the camera in answering one question. Why don't any of the media stream media/tv journalists ask the same of Obama? She's confident yet being called a "hubris". Why can't women be confident, brave and following her convictions. She's walked the walk, and not just talk the talk like Obama. Yet, look at the fact that this is the first time a Vice Presidential nominee being attacked just because she is a woman. I take this as an issue because there's a double standard where the Democrats Feminists status quo such as Maureen Down, Kathreen Quinlann or whatever her name is, which have bored me as far as I can remember with their agendas just can't swallow on the fact that it'll be the Republican party who historically will become the Vice President of the USA. And to think that they were fighting for women's equal rights, etc. Now we know, don't we, that they only fight for their agendas and not for women as a whole. I have to admit that we, women are our own worst enemy, and that's the problem. An American lady friend of mine who used to have a career as a tv producer of a media network and so is known in some media circle decided to stay at home and look after her family instead was criticised by them saying she's bringing women back to 1950's just because she's Republican.Now with Palin, suddenly the same women who criticised this saying how could Palin not taking care of her down-syndrome child and stay home instead of looking after her children by putting "country first". So, which one is it?And as for Obama. Even that odious Bill Maher had to comment on the fact that those two MSNBC journalists (Chris Matthew and Olbermann who surprisingly have been removed from the political program) are ready to have sex with Obama given of their blind love for him which as journalists should be staying neutral. Obama now asked Bill Clinton's aid. I mean, look at the judgement he made on passing Hillary as his VP nominee. Not that I'm a fan of Hillary. On the contrary. Obama's all over the place and you want him to lead America against so many countries who hate America anyway regardless. I remember way before Bush time, there were 2 events that my high-society friends (Italians) here had to attend where they had to choose between that of Italian and that of American (for 2 Kennedy members as guests). You know what they said among each other: "Aww, let's go to the Italian one. We don't care about the Kennedys". The Democrats think that that they would be viewed favourably by other nations when they oppose Bush on everything. (I'm waiting to hear that Hurricane Ike is Bush's fault or punishment). People just do not like America because of envy on the superpower image and that phrase that the twentieth century has been the American Century. People just refuse to acknowledge that. I happen to love this country because of how they have saved the world and not only that but of each American that I've encountered and known, they've always been good, decent and very friendly if not generous also as people. I don't have disdain nor envy. A pity that many Americans are trying to appease to those people who really do not care a hoot about America. Ironically enough, GErmany, France and Italy have elected the right wing party as their government. That's what I meant by saying those who support Bush keep quiet about it. They just show that action speaks louders than words.And btw, there goes Biden with his gaff saying that Hillary would have been a better pick for VP. His other son just resign from the Company he's been working for due to fraud. Palin's husband is being dragged by these Obama supporters Alaskan State Trooper to bring to public the "October Surprise"?. It's a joke!The guy tasered his step-son and an alcoholic. I don't think Palin would have accepted this VP run is she's on the wrong side of the law.
Jim Thorpe
SG,I am not saying that is the reason they lost the war...I doubt a bit of depression will do that. :shock: I will try and find the article...I think Palin handled herself ok on the interview. I, like Milan, am concerned that Gibson said it was an exact quote when it wasn't, that their is no set Bush doctrine while he implied there was one. I think that if you didn't like Palin before then you didn't like her in the interview. If you liked Palin then you thought she did well.I agree that it may be closer to scenario two than three but it isn't scenario 1 as it seems you have advocated. I believe that it may be 2.25. How many babies does it take to dirty the pool? What a trick question! Do you think there is ever a time that killing is neccessary?Morally bankrupt to get a VP that has strong conservative values, that has an 80% approval rating? She has to be doing something right to do that. Biden was forced out of the last couple of elections for a variety of reasons, but he does carry the clout of the old established democrats....who's to say that he got Kennedy's endorsement by telling him he would pick Biden? Ascribing only bad things to McCain and only good things to Obama isn't reality. Obama has come up through Chicago politics he didn't do that by being the cleanest candidate.
SG
Gibson wasn't even sure what Bush Doctrine is as he quoted only one of them and although there are some traps, Palin didn't fall into it. He was rather condiscending asking her to face the camera in answering one question.[/quote]And here am I knowing exactly what has been referred to as the Bush Doctrine..and I'm not running for VP. The term has been much used over the years and is quite precise. Don't believe the spin Milan or Jim. [url=http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-and-charlie-gibson-got-the-bush-doctrine-wrong-its-preventive-war-not-pre-emptive.html]The term, as applied by Gibson is pretty much, if not exactly correct, but close.[/url] And if there are variations to it, Palin's problem is she knew none of them. [url=http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php]She had no idea what he was talking about.[/url] Which is appalling. What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.[/quote]She was shocking on the interview but I guess it depends how high you set the bar. On Foreign relations she simply doesn't have a clue. Witness the Russian blip...the average 14 year old studying history would have a better grip on the delicacies of foreign diplomacy. And there was glib cliche after glib cliche. Surely Americans are demanding of a little more depth from their politicians...but maybe not. Doesn't this scare you? It should.Jim you keep on going on about the 80% thing..the only relevance it seems to have is to the bonuses she paid each Alaskan. Cool eh, but how she did as Governor of Alaska is utterly irrelevant to where she is now..the question being, is she up to the job, which is a huge resounding no..unless you can offer some international experience and understanding beyond being next to Russia and god's will.Which then takes you back to the big question you kinda answer anyway..and that is that she ain't fit for the job but is a vote catching asset..which takes you back to McCain's moral corruption..he sold America down the river..you included...to get elected.As to the scenarios you mention..since we know from voluminous documentation, books and records that Bush lies and distorted the evidence...and that's pretty much indisputable, to take you guys to war then I'd put it at 1.5. And I know it's almost an obscene thing to try to quantify (or at least it is to most decent people) but based on HRW figures and the four different surveys (which makes 100% of all research done) that about 3 times as many Iraqis died as result of your invasion and the aftermath as did in Saddam's years. And that doesn't include the millions overseas or displaced internally and a nation destroyed.His other son just resign from the Company he's been working for due to fraud.Palin's husband is being dragged by these Obama supporters Alaskan State Trooper to bring to public the "October Surprise"?. It's a joke!The guy tasered his step-son and an alcoholic. I don't think Palin would have accepted this VP run is she's on the wrong side of the law.[/quote]@Milan: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at but Biden's son is not running, so that is a big so what. It is irrelevant. McCain however is, and his Finance chief is also on the payroll of Chevron. That is highly relevant and speaks volumes.As for the other, it goes to ethics and the rule of law. Surely you buy that Milan..the rule of law. That is what society hinges on. If Palin's actions were ethically wrong (and the jury is out on that and it's not Obama's supporters..it's the State of Alaska investigating, and a law suite from a Police Union) then she is penalised in the appropriate way. Or at least that is the law. It has nothing to do with any judgement you or anyone might make as to whether the guy tasered his step-son and is an alcoholic. That is irrelevant too.I've yet to hear a living soul criticise Palin for being a woman, so I'm not sure of your point, but I think you are missing the more relevant point that she is not fit for the position and should never have been nominated by someone who says he puts country first.
SG
That's what I meant by saying those who support Bush keep quiet about it. They just show that action speaks louders than words.[/quote]But one of the fascinating things about the French and the Germans is they both quite clearly, despite being right wing, refuse to follow the Bush line and it's upset and confused the Americans. Witness the diverging thoughts on Georgia and the refusal to commit more to Afghanistan or Iraq. McCain's comments on Georgia were received quite uncomfortably in Europe and Asia. Being right wing does not equate to uncritical support. The rise of Europe as an independent voice, running its own course is a dominant theme in the 21st Century. European, and Global, distaste for Bush's actions have played a huge part in that parting of the ways.
tintin
No differences between Obama and McCain? Here are their past positions, opinions, and voting records.McCAIN[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm[/url]OBAMA[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm[/url]If you don't see any enormous differences between these two candidates, then I suggest you need at a minimum a pair of new reading glasses, [color=#008000][b][/b] [/color] :evil:
tintin
milan,She's walked the walk, and not just talk (sic) the talk like Obama.[/quote]Sounds pretty good as a saying, but what does it have to do in the present context? However, if I had to use this saying in the present situation, I would say that it is Obama, like him or not, who "walked the walk," having charter his path years ago, and with determination, courage, and hard work, and has now arrived on the threshold of the most important job in the world. Palin, she just got picked up out of the blue by a misogynist and selfish McCain, somewhat briefed as to what to say, and managed to make coherent sentences. In all honesty, I can say that I, for one, could have done even better in such an interview: at least, I know what the Bush's Doctrine is. :lol: It is more than obvious to anybody with a little bit of grey matter that Palin is being USED as a last ditch for McCain's election, to appeal to women[color=#008000][b][/b][/color]. And I am afraid that it may work after all. To stay in the "pig" theme of the week, [color=#008000][b][/b][/color]
SG
And now we know that the little foreign experience Palin claimed [url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/13/palin.iraq/index.html]she had, she lied about[/url]: In July of last year, Palin left North America for the first time to visit Alaskan troops stationed in Kuwait. Palin officials originally said her itinerary included U.S. military installations or outposts in Germany and Kuwait, and that she had visited Ireland.A Palin aide in Alaska had said Iraq was also one of the military stops on that trip.The Boston Globe, however, reported Saturday that in response to questions about the trip, Alaska National Guard officials and campaign aides said Palin did not go past the Kuwait-Iraq border.In addition, campaign aides also confirmed reports to CNN Saturday that Palin's time in Ireland on that trip had actually been a refueling stop.[/quote]Good god....And since we are [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all]talking corrupt practices[/url]: So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects. [/quote]There is a litany more at the post. This woman is corrupt to the core and I guess well suited in that way to McCain.
SG
And [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics]more lies....[/url]Senator John McCain has drawn some of the biggest crowds of his presidential campaign since adding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his ticket on Aug. 29. Now officials say they can't substantiate the figures McCain's aides are claiming.McCain aide Kimmie Lipscomb told reporters on Sept. 10 that an outdoor rally in Fairfax City, Virginia, drew 23,000 people, attributing the crowd estimate to a fire marshal.Fairfax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it. Wilson, in an interview, said the fire department does not monitor attendance at outdoor events. [/quote]There is more at the link. This may not be a major lie, but a lie it is, and the fact that not telling the truth is so easy for this crew is a fairly clear indication that, far from change, you can expect more of the same, perhaps worse, than the mess of the last eight years. Jim..you are just fodder to these people.
Thorsten
Milan,talking about traps, I was reading your last posting several times and it was interesting to get an idea, how those poll results pro Palin are to explain.It seems to become clear now this tactic manoeuvre with Sarah Palin's nomination, everybody can see that she is not prepared or qualified for the job and John McCain will have known this too, but this also doesn't seem to matter.It is Karl Rove style, her function is to polarize and what Paul Krugman called in his NYT article a blizzard of lies, is only to focus the fire on her, distract from the clinch Obama vs. McCain and reach solidarity with the alleged underdog.Palin is representing this cosy America, a woman and mother of 5 children, a country girl, she doesn't belong to an elite, is representing Christian values and is not part of this (suspicious?) Washington establishment, her hockey mom image is well calculated.She is the sand sack in front of McCain and beating this sand sack will be considered as foul and causes only more empathy for the old man, who will fatherly defend her, so every kind of critic will simply be labelled as sexism.In my point of view a perfidious and appalling manipulation, which doesn't show the intention to change the political situations, more it's simply another cheap trick to get to the power.
Jim Thorpe
Tintin, Before you get any angrier, I suggest you get out your glasses and see what was being referred to...in point, it was that Roy went on about Palin and Nato, it is one of the stances that is the same as Obama's. Tintin, hard as it is for you to believe this, I think you have good reasons for voting for Obama. Many of his policies match your values. That is not an insult. Others have different values and it doesn't make them bad people.So, let me get this straight.Bush is not quite Adolph but worse than Pol Pot.McCain, who before this election was a pretty cool guy, is worse than Mussolini but not as bad a Bush, maybe.Palin is a lying whore who will kill us all because she is a a dumb rural christian.Obama is the Messiah, his will be done.Obama's choices all come from the heart while McCain, while being controlled by the alien living in his cheek, makes decisions for selfish reasons while he despises all americans.And you don't see why moderates are not buying this story. SG- do you remember the Dead Milkmen song, In praise of shanana? "Sha-Na-Na... shot KennedySha-Na-Na... stabbed that guy at AltamontSha-Na-Na... started the Peace CorpsSha-Na-Na... were the first AstronautsSha-Na-Na... joined the Black PanthersSha-Na-Na... led student sit-insSha-Na-Na... grew organic food"It is starting to sound as ridiculous as that.Obama is losing. "A senior Democratic strategist, who has played a prominent role in two presidential campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: "These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They're the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won't accept that they are losing and they won't listen.""[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2909844/Barack-Obama-under-fire-for-ignoring-advice-on-how-to-beat-John-McCain.html"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... cCain.html[/url]ABC got caught editing out important parts of the taped interview, important. Again supporting the republicans charge that the media is against them.[url="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/09/was-abc-news-ki.html"]http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2 ... ws-ki.html[/url]Obama's latest ad makes fun of a war hero's injuries...I am not being gleeful about this. The last couple of years people have asked me how George Bush got elected...He didn't win, Kerry blew it. As Obama is doing now. The democratic party can't seem to understand how to win a presidential election anymore. I can tell them as I am telling you. If you continue to malign your opponents and tar them as killers, haters, liars, ignorant christians, distort their intentions and change the meaning of what they say you will continue to lose the elections. I have been saying this since almost the first post on this thread. McCain will just sit back and smile over all of this while he watches the meltdown of Obama's supporters and watch as they say even crazy stuff. Palin as a child molester?[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/13/the-latest-sarah-palin-smear-from-the-left-teen-molester/"]http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/13/t ... -molester/[/url]Here is the best advise I can give Obama;Obama needs to tell his supporters to just shut up. Madonna comparing McCain to Hitler? McCains campaign ads talk how Obama is a celebrity. Having her do this crap just supports the idea. Call her up and tell her to shut up. Call every celebrity known from Matt Damon to Puffy to Pamela Anderson and tell them to shut up. Call the left wing bloggers and tell them to shut up. Atrios, shut up. Huffington posters? Shut up. Media? Stop doing stupid crap that just gets caught. Then I would agree to debate McCain, anywhere any day or every day until the election. As an Ivy league graduate with a law degree, I should be able to beat up McCain. Stop saying you are going to take off the gloves, everytime you have has been a disaster. Stop making Palin the center of attention. The media is on your side use them in a more strategic way. But tell your supporters to shut up.(sighs and gets off soap box)
Jim Thorpe
Milan,talking about traps, I was reading your last posting several times and it was interesting to get an idea, how those poll results pro Palin are to explain.It seems to become clear now this tactic manoeuvre with Sarah Palin's nomination, everybody can see that she is not prepared or qualified for the job and John McCain will have known this too, but this also doesn't seem to matter.It is Karl Rove style, her function is to polarize and what Paul Krugman called in his NYT article a blizzard of lies, is only to focus the fire on her, distract from the clinch Obama vs. McCain and reach solidarity with the alleged underdog.Palin is representing this cosy America, a woman and mother of 5 children, a country girl, she doesn't belong to an elite, is representing Christian values and is not part of this (suspicious?) Washington establishment, her hockey mom image is well calculated.She is the sand sack in front of McCain and beating this sand sack will be considered as foul and causes only more empathy for the old man, who will fatherly defend her, so every kind of critic will simply be labelled as sexism.In my point of view a perfidious and appalling manipulation, which doesn't show the intention to change the political situations, more it's simply another cheap trick to get to the power.[/quote]Good call on this Thorsten! But it can be argued that Obama's entire run has been a cheap trick at gaining power. Inexperienced black man being controlled by the old democratic guard. They wanted to get Clinton machine out of their way and decided the only way to beat a women was to get an african american. McCain just wanted to give working mothers a voice in government. Is it true? I don't know but I think the conservatives will go for it.Each side can easily say bad things about each other. This is politics. This is what they do. You don't have to be part of it. Refuse to believe the worst in your opponents.If you expect Obama to be a uniter and not a divider, how can he do this with this much animosity? This is the divisive stuff that makes it impossible for good things to get done!
Jim Thorpe
Upon reading this again it may sound like I am telling you all to shut up...Sorry that wasn't the intention. Telling his supporters who are getting tv and computer exposure. None of you are getting that, are you?Tintin, Before you get any angrier, I suggest you get out your glasses and see what was being referred to...in point, it was that Roy went on about Palin and Nato, it is one of the stances that is the same as Obama's. Tintin, hard as it is for you to believe this, I think you have good reasons for voting for Obama. Many of his policies match your values. That is not an insult. Others have different values and it doesn't make them bad people.So, let me get this straight.Bush is not quite Adolph but worse than Pol Pot.McCain, who before this election was a pretty cool guy, is worse than Mussolini but not as bad a Bush, maybe.Palin is a lying whore who will kill us all because she is a a dumb rural christian.Obama is the Messiah, his will be done.Obama's choices all come from the heart while McCain, while being controlled by the alien living in his cheek, makes decisions for selfish reasons while he despises all americans.And you don't see why moderates are not buying this story. SG- do you remember the Dead Milkmen song, In praise of shanana? "Sha-Na-Na... shot KennedySha-Na-Na... stabbed that guy at AltamontSha-Na-Na... started the Peace CorpsSha-Na-Na... were the first AstronautsSha-Na-Na... joined the Black PanthersSha-Na-Na... led student sit-insSha-Na-Na... grew organic food"It is starting to sound as ridiculous as that.Obama is losing. "A senior Democratic strategist, who has played a prominent role in two presidential campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: "These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They're the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won't accept that they are losing and they won't listen.""[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop[/url] ... cCain.htmlABC got caught editing out important parts of the taped interview, important. Again supporting the republicans charge that the media is against them.[url="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2"]http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2[/url] ... ws-ki.htmlObama's latest ad makes fun of a war hero's injuries...I am not being gleeful about this. The last couple of years people have asked me how George Bush got elected...He didn't win, Kerry blew it. As Obama is doing now. The democratic party can't seem to understand how to win a presidential election anymore. I can tell them as I am telling you. If you continue to malign your opponents and tar them as killers, haters, liars, ignorant christians, distort their intentions and change the meaning of what they say you will continue to lose the elections. I have been saying this since almost the first post on this thread. McCain will just sit back and smile over all of this while he watches the meltdown of Obama's supporters and watch as they say even crazy stuff. Palin as a child molester?[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/13/t"]http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/13/t[/url] ... -molester/Here is the best advise I can give Obama;Obama needs to tell his supporters to just shut up. Madonna comparing McCain to Hitler? McCains campaign ads talk how Obama is a celebrity. Having her do this crap just supports the idea. Call her up and tell her to shut up. Call every celebrity known from Matt Damon to Puffy to Pamela Anderson and tell them to shut up. Call the left wing bloggers and tell them to shut up. Atrios, shut up. Huffington posters? Shut up. Media? Stop doing stupid crap that just gets caught. Then I would agree to debate McCain, anywhere any day or every day until the election. As an Ivy league graduate with a law degree, I should be able to beat up McCain. Stop saying you are going to take off the gloves, everytime you have has been a disaster. Stop making Palin the center of attention. The media is on your side use them in a more strategic way. But tell your supporters to shut up.(sighs and gets off soap box)[/quote]
Jim Thorpe
SG- regarding the Bush doctrine...I know that you don't like him, but he is the guy to first use the phrase "Bush Doctrine"...He says that Gibson got it wrong and not Palin...By the way, he is not a Palin supporter..."The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?" Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense." Wrong. I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. "[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1[/url]
Jim Thorpe
And now we know that the little foreign experience Palin claimed [url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/13/palin.iraq/index.html]she had, she lied about[/url]: In July of last year, Palin left North America for the first time to visit Alaskan troops stationed in Kuwait. Palin officials originally said her itinerary included U.S. military installations or outposts in Germany and Kuwait, and that she had visited Ireland.A Palin aide in Alaska had said Iraq was also one of the military stops on that trip.The Boston Globe, however, reported Saturday that in response to questions about the trip, Alaska National Guard officials and campaign aides said Palin did not go past the Kuwait-Iraq border.In addition, campaign aides also confirmed reports to CNN Saturday that Palin's time in Ireland on that trip had actually been a refueling stop.[/quote]Good god....And since we are [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all]talking corrupt practices[/url]: So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects. [/quote]There is a litany more at the post. This woman is corrupt to the core and I guess well suited in that way to McCain.[/quote:2pbrw3w3]Yes, Palin may have lied...but how is Obama different? Just a quick dogpile search gave me this:[url="http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/"]http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/[/url][url="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/03/30/more-obama-lies-media-will-ignore"]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-steph ... ill-ignore[/url][url="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp"]http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp[/url][url="http://democracy-project.com/?p=3186"]http://democracy-project.com/?p=3186[/url][url="http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-lies.htm"]http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-lies.htm[/url][url="http://obamalies.net/"]http://obamalies.net/[/url]An quote from Slate magazine kind of puts it together:" Judging political lies is a bit like trying to evaluate bad American Idol performances; we agree that they all kind of suck, but we can still have endless fights about which ones suck the least."Slate says it does appear that Obama lies less than McCain, but then asks says who really knows as they all are lying....
Roy
BaliLife, I have an idea regarding our bet. In an effort to see something at least mildly good come out of the outcome of the elections...be it McCain or Obama, how about we each agree to donate our winnings to The Helen Flavel Foundation? In that way, regardless of who wins, the real benefactors will be some Balinese kids up Bert's way.If McCain wins, I'll donate the money, and if Obama wins, you donate the money.You can reply by way of PM if you rather...or, you may have a more "close to heart" charity that you would rather see your winnings go to...which is fine by me.
SG
Stop saying you are going to take off the gloves, everytime you have has been a disaster. Stop making Palin the center of attention. The media is on your side use them in a more strategic way. But tell your supporters to shut up.[/quote]Sorry Jim that doesn't work. Palin is prima face evidence of McCain's moral corruption and is increasingly the Dem's secret weapon. She's prime evidence as to why he and the GOP despise you so very much.I'd love to answer a few on the things in your soap box post, as you put it but I'm having trouble working out what exactly you are trying to say, but I am thinking you are rather missing the points we are trying to make hereABC Edit.... so what..are you really trying to tell us she didn't say the things she was filmed as saying. If she said just one of those things she's been pulled up on then she is utterly unfit to be president and should never have been nominated as VP. It still returns to McCain's moral corruption and you keep on sidestepping that. One of the edited bits was I believe this:Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. Thats what we have to make sure that were praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is Gods plan.[/quote]If so..then ABC did her a favour as that is prime wacko stuff....especially as this is referring to a Muslim nation. It underlines her failure to understand very basic stuff. Hardly evidence of MSM bias against the right, quite the opposite.Have you been interviewed..I have hundreds of times..they always edit. You don't want edit..do it live..which she won't. End of story.Oh, and don't call be Obama a wannabe celebrity when the RNC called McCain 'the chosen one'. As to his war service..yes brave in captivity...I don't think I could do that, but before that a thoroughly average pilot who's claim to herosim was bombing civilians from a height, a job for which he volunteered twice. Obama was not attacking his military injuries..you seem to be trawling the loopy sites for this stuff. There are a multitude of photos online showing that the right is overstating his war injury disability, using a discredited Boston.com story from eight years back as it's only evidence. He can't use a keyboard but is photographed doing just that with a blackberry....hmmmmI come from a two generation military family and we were always taught that real heroes don't talk about it, let alone live off it and relive it for 4 decades.Sleaze? Here's one today:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080913/obama-waffles/images/f6bb2313-3996-4704-9be0-4be63b873304.jpg[/img]Or how [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302270.html?hpid=topnews]about this?[/url]A new group financed by a Texas billionaire and organized by some of the same political operatives and donors behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004 plans to begin running television ads attacking Barack Obama, a signal that outside groups may play a larger role than anticipated in the closing days of the presidential race[/quote] Now the old McCain was strongly condemning of this bunch in 2004. This is a test....I'm betting the new McCain, the one who wants to win regardless of how affects you or your country..won't say a word.
Jim Thorpe
Yes, we are talking past each other. You seem to think that McCain is evil and Obama is pure. I don't I believe that both have severe faults but that neither are evil or nor even bad people.You keep bringing in sites and links and so do I showing the same thing on both sides...Why is it then you think McCain is evil and Obama isn't?I am just amazed you don't see how Obama's campaign screwed up on this. The polls continue to show that McCain is steadily taking the lead in more and more states. The U.S. people have seen for themselves, for 40 years that McCain has serious injuries. To say they aren't so just makes what you are saying look unbelievable. It is also in a new york times article and a forbes article that it is difficult for him to use a keyboard but has his wife or staff do it for him:[url="http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html"]http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html[/url][url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin"]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/po ... ref=slogin[/url] Are those the loopy sites you are referring to? I travel 3-5 days a week, sometimes I have a lot of time and go to a lot of websites, but mainly these: Kos, huffington, LGF, Instapundit, Gizmodo,Popular science, Drudge and my college athletics site. :) I don't think they are that loopy except for a few of the commentors on the political sites.The hyper partisanship must stop. Obama is not the anti-christ. McCain is not the evil Borg. Isn't this the change that you are asking for? Better relationships? Reaching out between enemies? How can you expect McCain or Obama to reach out to Putin if they can't even reach out to a fellow american? How about an understanding of the differences between cultures when you have slashed and burned your own people? Why don't we start modelling the behavior we are demanding from our leaders?
