Sarah Palin - A True (AIP) Republican

I hope Sarah Palin's friend isn't related to Polar Bear?

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
I'll say one thing for Sarah Palin though - I'd nob her.

EW

If you live in the United States, or move there that may well happen in the future.
That is she will screw you.

quote:

Originally posted by Diccus62:
Sarah's polite refusal of the Earwikker offer.....................................

Ah well, you can lead a horse to water...!

EW

............... but a pencil must be Lead

quote:

...er, well according to Wikipedia he taught law for 12 years, worked as a lawyer (associate then counsel) from 1993 to 2004 was elected to the illinois senate in 1996 and the US senate in 2005. Some of them sound like jobs to me.

Since we are throwing stones here John Sidney McCain II's biography (I enclose his middle name because I think these things are so important) shows that he has been in the Navy then an adviser on military matters and a congressman. So he appears not to have had a 'normal' job on civvy street. I don't know if he could manage a chip shopbut he seems to have difficulty keeping count of the number of homes he owns... (cheap shot, I know).

Does it matter?

Bruce

Not to me. Just trying to rile Fred and his partisan, cheerleader bullshit.

Had to resurrect this thread.
Best summary of our process yet.
Borgman Cartoon
David

quote:

Ah well, you can lead a horse to water...!

quote:

............... but a pencil must be Lead

Not lipstick?

I watched her first TV interview last night (the first time she was trusted to speak on her own).....what an intellectual giant....

Cheers

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
I watched her first TV interview last night

Cheers

Jim

Looked more like a cross-examination to me. No softball questions like Obama gets from the liberal press. I thought that Charlie Gibson was normally a nice cheery bloke, you'd think he was interviewing the devil himself.

quote:

Originally posted by John G.:

Looked more like a cross-examination to me. No softball questions like Obama gets from the liberal press. I thought that Charlie Gibson was normally a nice cheery bloke, you'd think he was interviewing the devil himself.

"Liberal media"?! Owned by corporations like General Electric, etc.?!

Anyway, I give Gibson props for (finally) refusing to just roll over when she tried to snow him. Over and over she wouldn't answer the question, or gave an answer that had nothing to do with his question, and, yes, he grilled her. She deserved it, and we deserve real answers.

She started to remind me, quite unfortunately, of George W. Bush ... that phony folksiness, pronouncing the word nuclear as "nucular," and, worst of all, giving answers like a high-school kid taking a test she didn't study for ... "The War of 1812 was a war that happened in 1812. Like many wars, people were killed. In 1812. There was a war."

She clearly didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is (unilateral preemptive attacks on other sovereign nations) but tried to bullshit her way through anyway. To his credit, Gibson did not let up and finally had to explain to her what it was. And then she threw in a little extra bullshit for good measure.

She's in way, way over her head, and the prospect of McCain winning and then immediately dropping dead from the excitement scares me even more than George Bush has over the last eight years, and that's really saying something ... never thought it possible.

Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

quote:

Originally posted by John G.:

Looked more like a cross-examination to me. No softball questions like Obama gets from the liberal press. I thought that Charlie Gibson was normally a nice cheery bloke, you'd think he was interviewing the devil himself.

She clearly didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is (unilateral preemptive attacks on other sovereign nations) but tried to bullshit her way through anyway. To his credit, Gibson did not let up and finally had to explain to her what it was. And then she threw in a little extra bullshit for good measure.

Fred

Fred, you obviously don't know what the Bush Doctrine is along with you buddy Charlie Gibson. I suggest you do a bit more research.

Regards,
John

John

If you had to summarise the "Bush Doctrine" in a sentence what would it be?

Cheers

Jim

The Bush Doctrine is one of preventive war: Attacking another country in order to prevent them from becoming a threat at some nebulous point down the line.

Pre-emptive war is a long-accepted, noncontroversial practice—if an enemy is clearly massing and about to attack you, you get to strike them pre-emptively.

John

That was two sentences - and without being pedantic can you tell me how it differs from Fred's short summary?

Cheers

Jim

The first sentence describes the Bush Doctrine, the second sentence describe pre-emptive war which is what Fred and Charlie described as the Bush Doctrine which is incorrect.

John

I think you are on shaky ground and that you also need to do some more research. This claim

quote:

Pre-emptive war is a long-accepted, noncontroversial practice—if an enemy is clearly massing and about to attack you, you get to strike them pre-emptively.

especially the part about being long accepted and non-controversial may be true through your eyes but is certainly not the view of most of the rest of the world. If this is really the case, why attack Iraq? Was Iraq getting ready to pounce of the US? Why not N. Korea?

Cheers

Jim

I give up Jim. The first sentence describes the Bush Doctrine, that applied to Iraq at the time.

John

quote:

that applied to Iraq at the time.

I don't agree that it did and the subsequent lack of either nuclear or chemical weapons sort of proved that.

We will just need to agree to disagree on the interpretation, which by the way, many analysts also disagree on, so we are not alone in being at odds over interpretation.

Cheers

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by John G.:

Fred, you obviously don't know what the Bush Doctrine is along with you buddy Charlie Gibson. I suggest you do a bit more research.

I had done some research, John, and then took your suggestion and did some more.

According to Bush's National Security Strategy from September 2002: "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."

That has generally been considered to be "The Bush Doctrine." So in a literal sense I'm correct that "unilateral preemptive war" is its defining component.

Our problem here is partly due to semantics, the difference between "preemptive" and "preventative." I think we can agree that there is some intersection between the definitions of those two words, and also that a preventative war is inherently preemptive.

It's true that many countries throughout history have waged justifiable preemptive wars, the most significant criteria of justification being the verifiable imminence of an impending attack. I wouldn't agree that it's an uncontroversial concept because its justification depends on the accurate assessment of impending threat, but it's certainly not a practice without precedence.

However, in hindsight it's clear that what President Cheney, er, Bush had in mind was closer to "preventative" war. So in that sense you are correct. And I think it's clear that when poeple like me, and Gibson, and others speak of Bush's Doctrine of preemptive war, it's actually preventative war that's implied.

The problem, of course, is that the justification of the Iraq war, which was preventative and therefore preemptive, was false. The books were cooked, the intelligence cherry picked and skewed, there was the repeated intentional misleading conflation of Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and bald faced lies were told. Led by Cheney, preventative war against Iraq was discussed beginning in February, 2001, a month after Bush was installed. It's all well documented by now, and many people knew it at the time, so it can't be accurately said that the Iraq war was justifiable based on what was supposedly known at the time. That ship has long since sailed.

Best,
Fred

Youtube
Sarah Palin is asked what papers she reads.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
Youtube
Sarah Palin is asked what papers she reads.

lol

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Lawson:

Mr. Obama, a lawyer and "community organizer" - whatever that is ...

I thought Sarah Palin's arrogant, sneering ridicule of community organizers was despicable, and certainly not very Christian.

Community organizers work in the trenches, often under paid (or not paid at all) and often unrecognized, to improve social conditions, to improve the lives of others, especially those who need help the most. What do you do for a living, Jim?

People who mock community organizers are people who don't give a damn about working people, the poor, the infirm, the disenfranchised.

This world would be far worse off without community organizers like Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Jane Addams, César Chávez, Paul Wellstone, Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, the suffragettes, those who struggled in the American civil rights movement, and many other selfless heroes of the unprivileged.

Anyone who ridicules community organizers is inherently un-Christian: Jesus Christ was a prototypical community organizer.

Sincerely,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Lawson:

Barrack Hussein Obama II's primary accomplishment in his life is that he wrote a couple books about himself and Oprah Winfrey liked them. That just doesn't cut it with most folks.

Why do you make a point of using Obama's middle name, Jim? Do you think there's anyone here who doesn't know what it is (impossible after the right-wing media's 24/7 repetition of it)? Or is it because you, like the right-wing media, want to encourage people to conflate Obama with Saddam Hussein? I think the latter.

Further, Obama wrote one personal memoir titled Dreams of My Father, and one book outlining his social and political positions and ideas titled The Audacity of Hope, which is not a "book about himself" ... it's a book about the USA, its people, its history, and its relationship with the world, past, present and future. Have you read either of them, Jim? Didn't think so.

Finally, you say "That just doesn't cut it with most folks" ... you mean, "most folks who think like me." Not "most folks" period, Jim, because currently, most folks in the USA support Obama. Or do you often confuse your opinions for those of everyone else?

Sincerely,
Fred

apologies if already seen...