FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Joan Six-Pack in the White House? You betcha NOT





handfleisch
Not unless the US is masochistic, because it would be more of the same. When Bush ran the first time the (sad) question was "Who would you rather have a beer with?". Well we can see that level of competence got us -- 2 wars, economic collapse, the Katrina FEMA unpreparedness, etc etc.

Every time Palin said "you betcha" in that cutesy/folksy contrived way, I just started imagining having to hear her annoying, fake act for four years. No thanks.
jmi256
Despite any personal attacks about the way she speaks, the stances she takes on abortion, spending, defense, taxes, drilling, etc. are all far superior to Obama's and would be a better benefit to the US than Obama's. Even his own VP nominee doesn't agree with him!
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
I just started imagining having to hear her annoying, fake act for four years. No thanks.

You can always just turn the TV off whenever she's about to be on it. Besides, how often do you hear the vice president's voice anyway? (Unless you happen to be a congressman... or aide)
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
2 wars,
(Emphasis added)

Do you believe President Bush responsible for the attacks of 9/11? I'll concede Iraq as Bush's responsibility for starting, but Afghanistan?

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
2 wars,
(Emphasis added)

Do you believe President Bush responsible for the attacks of 9/11? I'll concede Iraq as Bush's responsibility for starting, but Afghanistan?

Respectfully,
M

Come on Moonspider. You know as well as I do that the Afghanistan conflict is incredibly complex. I personally do believe that the US has a large portion of blame to accept. I also believe that the history of the most recent conflict (ie post 9.11) is not something the US should be proud of. We have debated before about the difference between war crimes and terrorism. The justification for the latest invasion of Afghanistan was that they (the Taliban govmt) would not surrender a civilian terrorist (Bin Laden). As I remember events, the Taliban asked for evidence, Bush said that was an unreasonable request, and the (latest) war started.
Now, no supporter of the Taliban am I, but Bush certainly had a key role.
handfleisch
Thanks Bikerman, you said it well.

Whether the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was a blow to the 9/11 Saudi Arabian plane hijackers, (a question which leaves out the "inside job" angle which many Americans suspect anyway), is an open question.

Besides, all this is a typical silly internet argument anyway. In that vein, Moonspitter I'll give you 1 war if you give me all the other points. Deal?
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
Despite any personal attacks about the way she speaks, the stances she takes on abortion, spending, defense, taxes, drilling, etc. are all far superior to Obama's and would be a better benefit to the US than Obama's. Even his own VP nominee doesn't agree with him!



According to you.

I might add that both Palin and McCain have stated on many occasions they don't agree on quite a few things because they're both "mavericks" (lol). The VP and President aren't supposed to agree, it's not written anywhere that they're supposed to. If anything, they should probably be slightly opposed or questionable so we don't have another Bush/Cheney shitfest...
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Despite any personal attacks about the way she speaks, the stances she takes on abortion, spending, defense, taxes, drilling, etc. are all far superior to Obama's and would be a better benefit to the US than Obama's. Even his own VP nominee doesn't agree with him!



According to you.

I might add that both Palin and McCain have stated on many occasions they don't agree on quite a few things because they're both "mavericks" (lol). The VP and President aren't supposed to agree, it's not written anywhere that they're supposed to. If anything, they should probably be slightly opposed or questionable so we don't have another Bush/Cheney shitfest...


The difference between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden is that while Palin may have a subtly different opinion than McCain on certain issues, she still believes that the core of John McCain's policies are right. She respects John McCain and looks forward to him in office. Biden on the other hand doesn't even think Obama is qualified. I'm not even sure why he accepted the nomination to be honest. Every time I see him defending Obama's lack of experience and leadership, incompetent stances on issues, etc., Biden has this "oh crap, what excuse to I have to pull out of my arse for this guy now" look on his face.
handfleisch
How silly. Candidates always stress their opponents weaknesses against their own strengths when running against each other, and then get along in working together when they end up on a ticket together. Remember Bush1 called Reagan's economic ideas "Voodoo Economics" when they were competing, and then implemented those economic strategies as Reagan's vice president and later as president. These things often happen and they are mostly forgotten footnotes in history (the only reason this one is memorable was for the colorful phrase, and the fact that Voodoo Economics is pretty much what we are paying for now.)

When people harp on these minor issues, it proves that they really don't have much substantial on Obama, and it makes the attempt to distract from the issue (in this case Palin's remarkable incompetence) all the more pathetic.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
When people harp on these minor issues, it proves that they really don't have much substantial on Obama, and it makes the attempt to distract from the issue (in this case Palin's remarkable incompetence) all the more pathetic.


Nothing substantial on Obama? Are you referring to the lack of any substantial accomplishments by Obama? You must be. All we've gotten from him is what he PROPOSES to do since he hasn't really accomplished anything and isn't qualified to lead effectively.

Now if you want to talk about how ridiculous some of his proposals are, his corrupt connections to terrorists and criminals, his own (and his wife's corruption), etc., there is ton of info on that.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
When people harp on these minor issues, it proves that they really don't have much substantial on Obama, and it makes the attempt to distract from the issue (in this case Palin's remarkable incompetence) all the more pathetic.


Nothing substantial on Obama? Are you referring to the lack of any substantial accomplishments by Obama? You must be. All we've gotten from him is what he PROPOSES to do since he hasn't really accomplished anything and isn't qualified to lead effectively.

Now if you want to talk about how ridiculous some of his proposals are, his corrupt connections to terrorists and criminals, his own (and his wife's corruption), etc., there is ton of info on that.


Uh, yeah, there's "ton of info" available from the Moonie Times, or World Nut Daily, Clownhall or the talk shows like Michael Savage that Obama is all at once an inexperienced terrorist socialist communist Muslim with Christian preacher problems. Laughable, but some people will believe anything.

Whereas the evidence of Palin's incompetence are available to anyone watching her disastrous interviews with Kate Couric. Evidence of her ethical deficiencies are plain in ongoing official investigations into her abuse of power in Alaska. Evidence of her character deficiencies as well as her competence can also be seen in the Rape Kit scandal, where as mayor she presided over billing rape victims to pay for their own medical tests (the state had to pass a law to get Palin's Wasilla to stop). And evidence of Palin's Christian extremist past are available to anyone watching her videotaped performance in front of the altar at the church she grew up, getting blessed by a wacky witchhunter pastor.

No, sorry, Palin's problems are too major and obvious to compare to the silly mud they are vainly trying to sling at Obama.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Uh, yeah, there's "ton of info" available from the Moonie Times, or World Nut Daily, Clownhall or the talk shows like Michael Savage that Obama is all at once an inexperienced terrorist socialist communist Muslim with Christian preacher problems. Laughable, but some people will believe anything.

Your criticism of sources grows tiresome... No specific sources were even mentioned at all, and yet you still lambaste them! Methinks you need a new counterattack strategy: this one is stale.
{name here}
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I just started imagining having to hear her annoying, fake act for four years. No thanks.

You can always just turn the TV off whenever she's about to be on it. Besides, how often do you hear the vice president's voice anyway? (Unless you happen to be a congressman... or aide)

Cheney isn't much of a vocal spokesperson for the US. If Bush croaked I'd think he'd still be a bit of a silent Cal. I could see Palin being used as a public relations footing as VP, and if she gets an upgraded position, she gets to become some bad disney movie come true.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Your criticism of sources grows tiresome... No specific sources were even mentioned at all, and yet you still lambaste them! Methinks you need a new counterattack strategy: this one is stale.


Youthinks erroneously. I listed those sources because that poster constantly uses such sources in his posts, and because those sources are the main source for these gutter politics.

That the use of junk sources goes hand in hand with propaganda; no credible sources spend time on this crap; and that's why I mentioned it.

That's the point. I forgot that on the internet it always has to be spelled out.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
2 wars,
(Emphasis added)

Do you believe President Bush responsible for the attacks of 9/11? I'll concede Iraq as Bush's responsibility for starting, but Afghanistan?

Respectfully,
M

Come on Moonspider. You know as well as I do that the Afghanistan conflict is incredibly complex. I personally do believe that the US has a large portion of blame to accept. I also believe that the history of the most recent conflict (ie post 9.11) is not something the US should be proud of. We have debated before about the difference between war crimes and terrorism. The justification for the latest invasion of Afghanistan was that they (the Taliban govmt) would not surrender a civilian terrorist (Bin Laden). As I remember events, the Taliban asked for evidence, Bush said that was an unreasonable request, and the (latest) war started.
Now, no supporter of the Taliban am I, but Bush certainly had a key role.


Yes, we've jabbed about it before and agreed to disagree on many issues. True, it is highly complex, to say the least. However in invading Afghanistan President Bush executed an action I wanted President Clinton to do years prior after the bombing of the USS Cole.

I believe your recollection is correct, Bush demanded that the Taliban government turn bin Laden over to the United States, and the Taliban then asked for evidence.

I personally would not have asked. Doing so was a no win. Did anyone in the Bush Administration seriously believe that the Taliban would turn him over? I doubt it. The United States (or any other government in the same situation) would also never turn evidence over since it could compromise intelligence operations and or personnel, especially ongoing ops. So, asking was just a waste of time that could be used against the government, as the Taliban did to the U.S. by turning the table and asking for evidence.

President Bush certainly played a key role, but I see and saw war as inevitable in Afghanistan after the Cole attack. It was just a matter of time before a severe enough attack occurred to bring the United States to full scale war. (I could say I’ve seen this war between the West and radical Islam as inevitable since the mid 1980s, but that’s another conversation.) I don't wish to hijack the thread so I leave it at that and grant you any final words.

Respectfully,
M
Alaskacameradude
Please. As a actual RESIDENT of the state that Palin is a governor of (as opposed to those who
throw stones from afar) I can tell you she did a VERY good job up here. In fact she had
approval ratings in the mid 80s.....yes even most Democrats approved of her job. Once she
was nominated as VP her approval ratings dropped to mid 60's as most Democrats suddenly
started ripping her, the same ones who were singing her praises for being a bipartisan Gov. just
a few weeks earlier. I worked as a news photographer covering state politics for 10 years,
and it was funny how quick those Democratic state legislators (who not coincidently
are supporting Obama) turned around and started talking about how she was suddenly
NOT qualified when they were mere days before talking about how nice it was to have
a governor that would get things done.
She did things like push through a bigger tax on oil companies,
pass an energy rebate, cut wasteful spending....and many other things. Incompetent?
In your eyes maybe, certainly not in mine!!!
lagoon
You know to be honest, I can't give any opinions of her the time of day because there are so many idiots in the media that don't have a clue about her policies, they just know that she looks like a twit when being interviewed.
handfleisch
lagoon wrote:
You know to be honest, I can't give any opinions of her the time of day because there are so many idiots in the media that don't have a clue about her policies, they just know that she looks like a twit when being interviewed.


True enough, but what she says in interviews is important, isn't it? I presume her policies for the national agenda, such as they are, are the same as McCain's, right?

When she sneered at Obama's past as a "community organizer" in her first major speech at Republican convention, it was first of all a strategic blunder -- community organizers are part of what the Republicans used to tout as the "thousand points of light" helping society -- and was also in one stroke an insult to hundreds of thousands of voters active in their communities.

Since then she's descended to "palling around with terrorists" and other bottom-of-the-barrel tactics, all the while coming off as not much more than a vindictive, uninformed opportunist.

I agree that just judging someone solely on their self-presentation is problematic, but in this case that presentation is quite detailed and unbecoming, don't you think?
liljp617
lagoon wrote:
You know to be honest, I can't give any opinions of her the time of day because there are so many idiots in the media that don't have a clue about her policies, they just know that she looks like a twit when being interviewed.


She doesn't have a clue about her policies because she doesn't know the issues.
petecnmi
jmi256 wrote:
Despite any personal attacks about the way she speaks, the stances she takes on abortion, spending, defense, taxes, drilling, etc. are all far superior to Obama's and would be a better benefit to the US than Obama's. Even his own VP nominee doesn't agree with him!


That's a new take. I surmise you are a right-right wing conservative. As a Reagan era moderate Republican I can't see a single item where she would "benefit" our nation. Senator Obama has an all-inclusive agenda for us, that would pull us together as a nation and a people, and regain the lost respect for us worldwide. I like that. Palin's oratory reminds me of the old Nazi rhetoric in preWW2 Germany.

Bless 'ya

Pete
handfleisch
Quote:
That's a new take. I surmise you are a right-right wing conservative. As a Reagan era moderate Republican I can't see a single item where she would "benefit" our nation. Senator Obama has an all-inclusive agenda for us, that would pull us together as a nation and a people, and regain the lost respect for us worldwide. I like that. Palin's oratory reminds me of the old Nazi rhetoric in preWW2 Germany.

Bless 'ya

Pete


Yeah, a lot of Palin/Neocon rhetoric sounds like 1930s Germany. It's truly amazing and somewhat frightening that a politician on the national stages is willing (and being encouraged) to work a crowd into a frenzy with accusations that her opponent is semi-terrorist, semi-Communist, etc, all during a financial crisis. Very Weimar.
Related topics
Google earth-- Big security Hole..White house hidden now
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Enemy Press
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Joking....
Why is the USA in Iraq?
Oops! - Bush Unaware Mikes Were Still On
White House is the Insane Asylum
Pres. Obama holds first White House Seder (Jewish Passover)
White House excludes "whining" Fox News from inter
Six Pack Diet
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.