Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Hmmm, she talks with the same inflections and attitudes of a junior high girl who lives on soap operas.
She knows almost nothing, or she'd be giving better and more interviews.
She had a librarian fired because the librarian would not ban a book at Palin's request, but the outcry was so great the librarian was reinstated.
And then there is trooper gate.
YOU have to admire her Cheney like qualities, that is, if you admire seriously criminal scumbags.
Her husband is or at least has been recently a member of a radical fringe group that advocates violence, and SHE addressed that group recently in absolutely laudatory terms.
She thinks a wink and a smile will win over the American people, in lieu of actual knowledge or a good plan of action.
She seems to really believe that, "Drill baby drill". is a good energy policy. Geologists KNOW and have written articles in the newspapers that drilling is NOT the answer to our energy problems.
Yes, there must be a lot to like about Palin, I just can't seem to find any of it.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
"Republicans benefit more from manipulation of the voter registration and voting systems."
ok, explain this one...and don't forget acorn
if palin gave oral, then obama gave anal...to the terrorist in his neighborhood who launched his career; the convicted slum lord who gave him a sweet real estate deal; the american-hating preacher who gave him "street cred"; the daley machine that put him in the senate; fannie and freddie who gave him thousands of dollars; the media who have covered his ass since the primaries
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Just to point out how silly your arguement is, Wes, should I post some of the quotes from Biden, a senior Senator for over 20 years?
I'm sure you wouldn't argue that misspeaking or not knowing a certain president when speaking off the cuff, immediately disqualifies their accomplishments. Would you?
|
|
Witch Hunter
Social climber
Templeton, CA
|
|
Some of you folks are really funny.
If Palin had lived her life in the lower forty eight, she'd just be another welfare mom raising the next generation of white trash, instead she's the Governor of the smallest populated state in the union raising the next generation of white trash. And look at her history as mayor of Wasilla, came into office with a budget surplus and left $30 million deficit. $30 million for a town of 6500 people. Do we really want this kind of fiscal management? By her own words, she has stated that her husband and her had a hard time affording health insurance for the family, until they both got "good union jobs"
Just another communist posing as a Republican.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
"Just be sure to weight the number of gaffs by the time in public office and accomplishments."
Are you kidding me? You expect me to go back through his whole career? That's gonna take a long time, that I'd rather not waste. He is known as one of the most widely misspoken Senators though. And I'm sure you're aware of that already.
I just saw your edit...now we're talking about running the country? Not misspeaking?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2008 - 04:46pm PT
|
At least Biden will actually speak to the press and tell you what he thinks, or is not thinking (!).
From the time Palin was nominated to a few weeks ago, Biden had given 89 interviews and 4 press conferences. You can always find out what Biden's views are pretty easily.
But Palin has been hiding.
Why?
I'll take a gaffeomatic any day over a recluse.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
I'll be back, I gotta take a buddy to the airport.
carry on.
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
|
|
Bookworm-
Yes our next president SHOULD meet with the President of Iran, regardless if that is Obama or McCain. Why? Because he is an influential leader of an unstable nation that could have an impact on the future of ME and terrorism against the United States. Comparing Ahmadinejad to Martin is about as far off as comparing a Che Guevera to a gang banger.
(and no I'm not insinuating Ahmadinejad is a revolutionary leader, don't read in between the lines on this one, digest what I am actually writing)
The fact that smear fanatics like you try to make Obama's statement about meeting with Ahmadinejad in to something negative shows how out of touch you really are. If you are truly a Bookworm then maybe you have read The Art of War and can recall "Know thy Enemy". If you are really a fan of Bush and McCain's war hawk attitude then you know that there is nothing like meeting your enemy face to face.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2008 - 04:55pm PT
|
And btw, Palin and McCain have been playing with fire the last few days by accusing obama of "palling around" with terrorists.
When their own audience members respond "kill him" "terrorist" and "down boy" (to an African American man) and leave those taunts unanswered they are stoking some very debased and hateful impulses.
So much for McCain promising a clean and honorable campaign. It pains me to see a man I once respected bring himself down like this. Palin OTOH is a natural in this role.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
i think it's sweet how libs always govern through "hope and change" for the future, but you might want to study a little history:
"But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.
Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”
But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.
Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world."
and here's the link, lest you fear the vast right-wing conspiracy: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
i never said (nor has W or anyone else in his administration) that we shouldn't talk with iran...the position is that we shouldn't talk until iran demonstrates good will...when a foreign leader continually threatens our only true ally in the region, supports "insurgents" who are killing our troops fighting in another nation, openly defies the international community by pursuing nuclear weapons, maintains power through the most brutal tactics (hanging homosexuals, stoning adulteress women) then the US has NOTHING to gain from a meeting and EVERYTHING to lose...the little terrorist would flaunt the meeting as a sign of his own power and our weakness...his prestige and influence in the region would skyrocket while US influence would plummet...sorry you don't understand that, but ask yourself this: if it's such a good idea, why won't obama repeat his pledge?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
bookworm is essentially right about Kennedy at Vienna - he was over his head. Though he proved a fast learner. Still, Krushchev was emboldened by what he saw, which was not a good thing - although given conditions at the time, and the placement of U.S. IRBMs in Turkey, a confrontation of some kind was almost inevitable.
During World War II, given the odd alliance between Britain (Churchill), the U.S. (Roosevelt) and the U.S.S.R. (Stalin), Churchill was asked if there was anyone he wouldn't work with. He said something like "If the devil was opposed to Hitler, I would at least make a favourable reference to hell in the House of Commons".
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Incredible quote from Churchill.
I came across a recent book titled, Stalin and Hitler. Kissinger commended the book highly but as the book tried to delve deeply into the relations between the two, I am hard put to evaluate its content. If you trust Kissinger, it may have been right.
Its premise was that Stalin was deeply uncommunicative with everyone. The book led me to change my opinion that he was basically nuts. He tried everything he could do to avoid Operation Barbarosa. And that the conflict at Stalingrad with the 6th army was run by Zhukov, successfully I might add.
Churchill's quote is what I would expect from him had he found Stalin to be simply a blank wall, without a single hold.
Borders wanted $4.99 for the book. Now I am sorry I did not buy it. But then I read most of it.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Churchill, now there's a statesman...too bad we don't have that kind of leader anymore.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Invariably we recognize true leaders only
after the fact.
Right?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Jstan, well, yes. However, they are usually derided in their time and under appreciated. It isn't until we look back at history that we understand what they accomplished and what wise decisions they made in retrospect.
Maggie was a great woman too.
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
|
|
Totally agree about Kennedy....
But when has Obama said he wants to negotiate with Ahmadinejad?
Assuming that his intentions would be to ask for a peace treaty or negotiate an accord with Iran is based on what... the fact he is a Democrat, therefore "liberal" and "anti war" or a "peacenik"?
These are really HUGE assumptions the right wing spin machine is using to smear him, and they aren't based on ANY facts... just pure assumptions.
If Bookworm an others want to throw out accusations and smears just to keep verbal jab points and play the chest beating "my penis is bigger than your penis" game then fine. But if you want to have an open political discussion then base your statements on known facts. If you are going to slam a candidate for his/her position back it up with references to STATEMENTS THEY HAVE MADE, not the spewage from a radio talk show host.
Citing Kennedy's failures as reasons against Obama's position on meeting Ahmadinejad is like me saying Bush should be impeached for wire tapping because of Nixon's involvemnet in Watergate.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
DJS, he said this...
In a CNN presidential candidates debate in July 2007, Senator Obama was asked if he would be willing "without precondition" to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.
"I would," Senator Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."
That put him at odds not only with Republicans but with Senator Clinton, who said she would pursue more engagement with foes like Iran but not promise a top-level meeting immediately.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2008 - 07:20pm PT
|
Yep, that's true Bluering. And it is not a position I take and it is a position he has backpedaled on.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!