Nope, he simply has goals that don't match up with what the american people need. Remember - it's Rick that calling people out as complete idiots, not me, so please direct your comments to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
Nope, he simply has goals that don't match up with what the american people need. Remember - it's Rick that calling people out as complete idiots, not me, so please direct your comments to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Challenge her all you want, but watching all these people panic that were feeling invincible in the election over the Messiah, that have been whining about every negative thought about Obama and that have been downplaying experience is comical. Beyond that, I have no idea what McGreevey has to do with anything - that's about as irrelevant to this election as anything could possibly be.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldM_23
Well I would question the pick of McGreedy because he got caught taking bribes. The MSM focused on his double life and his homosexuality .But he was a bribe taker.
What you call panic we call politic, yes politic can become very pathetic dem or rep. Obama is not the messaih by any means but he has a better vision and will open the many doors that Mr. Bush has shut or was slam in his face. Let me break it down mathematically for you 16 year of bush (Dad & Son) + A messed up econmic system + War + Terriorist Problems + The highest unemployement rate ever + High Oil Prices = USA becoming a Third world countryQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
DonaldM_23, excuse me but I need a little more math than that:Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldM_23
1. What specifically is better about Obama's "vision" and what evidence do you have to support it?
2. What doors specifically have been slammed in Bush's face?
3. How is Bush (Dad & son) responsible for terrorist problems? Who was president when bin Laden first struck on American soil?
4. What exactly is the highest unemployment rate ever? Year, president and link to the evidence, please.
5. In what way is the "USA becoming a Third world country?" Evidence, please.
Man! Reading all this bashing of Bush, all the bad press, etc. almost got me to thinking that maybe we have had a bad 8 years, and THEN I think about Gore and Kerry, and I remember CARTER. I don't feel so bad after all!
Biden Was Wrong On the Cold War - WSJ.com
36 years as a senator and this is what his experience is ?
I caught a little of the excerpt on the way to work and I remember her saying something about going into PAkistan,
U.S. Hits al Qaeda in Pakistan - WSJ.com
Turns out she is pretty up to date,
Of course Obama believes in the "Bush doctrine " also :D :rolleyes: ;)
Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan - washingtonpost.com
Tom I love the names you have for everyone!! McGreedy!! To funny!!
Fiscal Management: America is broke. No wait, we're worse than broke. In less than five years these borrow and spend-thrifts have nearly doubled our national debt, to a stunning $8.2 trillion. These are not your Bush'sRepublicans who treated public dollars as though they were an endangered species. These Republicans waste money in ways and in quantities that make those old tax and spend liberals of yore look like tight-fisted Scots.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
This administration is so incompetent that you can just throw a dart at the front page of your morning paper and whatever story of importance it hits will prove my point.
Did I answer all your questions? :)
Dear Don, No.
Bush actually has opened the SPR before, though the purpose of the SPR is of course, strategic and is only authorized by law to be drawn down in the event of "severe energy supply interruption” or “to resolve supply interruptions stemming from situations internal to the United States.” Gas prices are not a “supply interruption.” In July, Obama was against using the SPR, “I do not believe that we should use the strategic oil reserves at this point,” so this is a recent (and politically expedient) flop in positions. As for how effective and truthful his claims are, see here.Quote:
1. What specifically is better about Obama's "vision" and what evidence do you have to support it?
Here is one of Obama vision, Energy is playing a pivotal role in this year's presidential election. And a crucial aspect of America's energy security not widely discussed is how to best use America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Sen. Barack Obama is proposing a simple maneuver -- called an exchange, or swap -- that will help lower the price of oil for consumers, increase the amount of oil in the SPR, increase energy security, and leave taxpayers better off by about $1 billion. His proposal deserves to be adopted. In 1975, after the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. created the SPR to protect against oil supply disruptions. That reserve now consists of 706 million barrels of crude oil, the largest stockpile in the world. As the steward of that stockpile, the Department of Energy plays an important role in oil markets. Merely announcing oil acquisitions or sales from the SPR moves oil prices. The SPR's drawdown capability of 4.4 million barrels of oil per day surpasses the daily production capacity of Iran, Iraq or Venezuela
And what will be the effect of his plan on the budget and our access to healthcare?Quote:
Oh yea here is his vision on the health crisis
“We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”
I don’t follow how that is door being slammed in Bush’s face.Quote:
2. What doors specifically have been slammed in Bush's face?
We are approaching a $1 trillion annual trade deficit, most of it with Asia, $220 billion with just China -- just last year
Ummm, as I recall Clinton was president in 1993 at the time of the first WTC bombing. What is it now, 2556 days since a terrorist attack on our soil?Quote:
3. How is Bush (Dad & son) responsible for terrorist problems? Who was president when bin Laden first struck on American soil? 1993 & 2002 nuff said why didn't this happen during the Clinton era hmmmm fisshy huh. They completely failed to manage the first large-scale emergency since 9/11. Despite all their big talk and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on homeland security over the past four years, this administration proved itself stunningly incompetent when faced with an actual emergency
How so? I saw nothing in there that said we are at the highest unemployment rate ever under the Bush administration. I don’t know what the highest ever was, but if you look at the actual statistics, not one historic high has been reached during the Bush administration, but 15 states reached historic lows during his presidency.Quote:
4. What exactly is the highest unemployment rate ever? Year, president and link to the evidence, please. This will answer your question http://www.workers.org/2008/us/jobs_0918/
I think you may need to familiarize yourself with what a third world country is, it certainly isn’t the US.Quote:
5. In what way is the "USA becoming a Third world country?" Evidence, please.
Fiscal Management: America is broke. No wait, we're worse than broke. In less than five years these borrow and spend-thrifts have nearly doubled our national debt, to a stunning $8.2 trillion. These are not your Bush'sRepublicans who treated public dollars as though they were an endangered species. These Republicans waste money in ways and in quantities that make those old tax and spend liberals of yore look like tight-fisted Scots.
LOL, relying on the media and Obama campaign talking points for information explains a lot. But hey, I do appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.Quote:
This administration is so incompetent that you can just throw a dart at the front page of your morning paper and whatever story of importance it hits will prove my point.
You have an excuse for every answer. In regards to the terrisom and attacks it was 1989 during Bush I. Nothing but excuses, its okay I appreicate your insite and opinion. Please I want your feed back of the Sarah Palin 20/20 interview airing tonight...
One more thing about the Palin /Gibson exchange about the Bush Doctrine. As I mentioned already he was vague about what he wanted in a reply Her initial response was one aspect of the Bush Doctrine . He clarified that he was talking about preemption ,and she gave a proper response to that also.
But; there never was anything controversial about preemption. JFK during the Cuban Missile crisis was seriously contemplating preemption .Attacking first when an imminent threat is realized is only common sense.
What Gibson meant ;and what Gibson got wrong himself in his clarifying smug follow-up was the part of the Bush Doctrine that called for (for lack of a better word)PREVENTIVE war.
Here is the relevant part of the Bush address Gibson referred to :
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
Now here is how Wiki describes the "Bush Doctrine"
Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats, the doctrine of preemptive war, and the president's second-term "freedom agenda".
There are parts of the Bush Doctrine like supporting the spread of Democracy that were not addressed at all. There were at least 4 major addresses that President Bush made ,that together laid out the "Bush Doctrine" .Gibson only referred to one of them but did not specify which part of the doctrine itself he wished her to comment on.
On a broader scope the Bush Doctrine could've been summed up as a rejection of the realpolitik policies that had been pursued by the US ;especially in the Middle East. Discussing the merits of that would've been worth the price of admission. I find little value in Gibson's gotcha games.
Yes, I think she did very well in her interview, very sound answers, in fact the "bush doctrine" has several meanings depending what you believe it is. For the media, for Bush, for congress, or perhaps what I believe.
Hello again:
I saw the complete interview last night. I was appalled at what I saw. If McCain seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as I suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.
The interview was clearly scripted and she stayed on point. However, she demonstrated a serious lack of awareness regarding the tough issues facing us today.
As an example, Palin's son has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony ON Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks? Does it matter WHY she said it?
When asked about her insight into Russia, she said, “They're our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."
What?? Can you imagine the derision a Democrat would have received if one of THEM had said that?
As I said earlier, she doesn't have the chops to be president. THAT is glaringly obvious to anyone. However, I suspect that those who liked her before the interview will still like her now, cause she served orange Kool Aid beforehand.
excon
PS> Yes, I quoted the NY Times.
Hi, Ex. You quoted the NY Times? Shucks, we don't even want our salsa to come from New York!
Less than 3 weeks after being chosen as VP candidate and Palin is getting all the press.
More than Biden or Obama or even McCain?
EX - we do have enemies in Iraq, and thousands of Americans have been killed there and Al Qaeda is fighting in Iraq or have you not been looking at the facts in such places as Anbar?
Obama: Arkansas Closer To Kentucky Than Illinois | Blue Grass, Red State
Obama does not know that KY is at IL's southern border? Or that you have to go through Missouri or Tenn to get from KY to AK?
Or that there are 50 not 57 states in the USA.
Palin's stand on foreign policy issues is less concerning than Obama's lack of USA geography knowledge.
I thought she showed at least the same level of knowledge of foreign affairs as her inquisitor. Was it good enough ? Actually it could've been better ;but I suspect she is a quick learner. Her domestic policy answers were better so that just indicates to me that she is a ticket balancer. That is generally the role a Veep plays in these campaigns . She has proven that she cannot be caught in a Dan Quayle moment (or dare I say a Joe Biden moment )
I have also read the out takes now (not sure if they aired the complete interview on Night line but the editied parts are available .
The Mark Levin Show » Gibson Interview
The editting made her appear more hawkish and less knowledgeable.You will notice in the transcripts that often the editing was done mid-sentence.
UPI took ABC to task for that today . She at first appeared startled by Gibson's aggressive approach ;but she recovered and proved unflappable.
ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire - UPI.com
UPI compared it the Sunday interiew with Obama by Stephanopoulos:
Quote:
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.
First, the Palin interview. Yes, it was obvious it was well scripted and I think that was part of what made her look a little uncomfortable at times, along with the unbelievable pressure she faced to do well. When you could tell she was speaking on her own she did great.
I thought she gave a good answer when Gibson pressed her about meeting another head of state - and then ABC promptly called her claim false which was entirely unfair. What she said was "and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you." ABC claimed it was false because all "living" former VP's had previously met a head of state. Excuse me, but "history" goes back a lot further than current "living" VP's.
She smacked Gibson down on the "task that is from God" controversy, her answers on the Bush doctrine and Russia could have been better but they certainly weren't frightening, and let me remind you of the dialogue prior to that terrifying "you can see Russia" comment.
I don't see anything frightening there, unless you believe her entire answer was "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."Quote:
PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
Overall, she did a fine job for a rookie on the national stage, better than Obama without his teleprompter or Biden shooting from the mouth. Who did do a lousy job was ABC. The GMA interview was edited to where they cut off most of her answers and quickly switched back to Gibson. It made Palin look more uncomfortable and Gibson look more credible as this rapid fire, tough interviewer. I want to see it in its entirety without the cuts. After the GMA interview they sliced and diced her as in claiming her VP answer false, and the 20/20 interview began with 7 minutes of ripping her to shreds.
She isn't up to it. Plain and simple. The only reason she is getting all the publicity is because absolutely no one knew who she was. No one (except maybe Tom)!! Now they are finding out that not only is she a no one, but she also know's nothing about the WORLD outside Alazka! It can only go down hill from here for her. And if not I really really hope that if McCain is elected he is as healthy as you say he is. Otherwise the WORLD is in huge trouble.
She admitted that her outside experience of the world is limited to Canada, Mexico and Kuwait. Hahahaha! Come on guys. That stick of lipstick sure is getting a good workout. But then again she has seen Russia across the ocean! Hahaha! Too funny!
watch this Palin and Clinton are coming together!
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/?dst=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video&__source=nbc|widget|NB C%20Video
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1271647
The MSM did not know of her - that is the MSM's ignorance.
The MSM thinking she was picked to win over Hillary voters is another MSM fallacy.
The MSM thinking, hoping that HRC would be VP - they got that wrong also.
The MSM thinking Obama represents change?? He picked a 36 year Washington insider:confused: who admits HRC might have been a better choice:)
Palin is getting the press because she is a social conservative who has energized the GOP base, threatening Obama's chances of being elected.
She is also "common," not an ivy league educated, smooth talking, politician who eats arugala. Her story of hard work, family, and traditional values is just something the MSM can't promote as "change" or progressive enough.
I indeed think you nailed it on the head when you called her "common"!!
Can't fault the MSM - no one outside of Alaska knew of her. Not a soul.
She's getting the press all right, but not for the good reasons.
Thanks Skell for the recognition.Trust me I was not the only person talking about Palin. I first heard of her last year while talking to Alaskan merchants. I have kept informed about her since and like what I've seen. Her Kudlow interviews and reports earlier this spring floated her name as a potential running mate . I think she is everything the Republican party needs ,and has similar views about Federalism that Fred Thompson ;the person I initially backed for President ,has.
Right, let's not blame the media because they didn't know about her. Flash back to Feb. 25th when I posted here that "AP hinted yesterday that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could be on the list of VP choices."
NRO mentioned her as a potential pick on Feb. 11.
On March 01, Carolyn Lochhead blogged in the SF Chronicle that She's Hot where He's Not in discussing her as potential VP. She said Palin was getting “big buzz in the conservative press and talk radio,” and mentioned “Weekly Standard pundit Fred Barnes flew up to Alaska to check her out.”
On June 4 on Real Clear Politics, Jack Kelly declared McCain Should Pick Sarah Palin for VP
On June 9, Nat Hentoff – who is certainly no right-winger – tabbed Palin as “ideal as VP for McCain.”
Also On June 9, MSNBC reports on the AP’s look “ at a list of potential running mates for McCain and Obama,” including Palin, possibly this article.
The Washington Post had her in the list on July 18.
They’ve know all along that Palin was a potential pick and they brushed it off. They were scooped when McCain announced her and they don’t like surprises so they’ve been in a panic. The MSM has no excuses, they blew it and you guys are covering for them – plain and simple.
Question... Exactly where have all of our "experienced" leaders taken us?
Look how much trouble our country is in at the hands of "experienced" men...
Hello again, Confused:
Much of the trouble we're in today, can be attributed directly to those who are in charge today. That would be the inexperienced George W. Bush and his pack of neo-cons. Therefore, to say that the trouble we're in today is due to experienced men is just not true.
Bush, like Palin, had NO national or worldwide experience, either. What he had was an agenda. It's THAT agenda that has caused the trouble we're in. McCain and Palin have a verrrrry similar agenda.
excon
Neither did Bill Clintoon;Ron Reagan ,Jimmy Carter... all Governors before they held the job as POTUS . In fact it is a rarety that a sitting Senator becomes President.
If Obama gets in he will have even less world wide experience than Palin has. She at least does business deals with Canada. Obama trashes NAFTA and then sends his operatives to Canada to tell them to ignore what the candidate says... "just words just speeches".
It Was Gibson’s Gaffe
Which made the smug condescension all the more precious.
By Charles Krauthammer
Quote:
“Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she
agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what
he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed
her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”
— New York Times, September 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The 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.
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, he 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 titled, “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.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.
If I were in any public foreign-policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about Bush’s grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.
Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.
Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign-policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.
Hello Steve:
Thanks for that. I'll be sure to NOT vote for Gibson.
excon
LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yeah, that's quite amusing. You guys don't take anything seriously, especially facts.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:15 AM. |