Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It is long past time for the American people and everyone else to stop taking this witless, incompetent, deluded, self-anointed, airheaded nincompoop seriously. It is evidence of a far-flung pathology that some significant proportion of the American populace consider Palin capable of intelligently managing the complex affairs of this nation or of any other, with the possible exception of the so-called "Tea Party Nation." These latest utterances on Iraq confirm indubitably the wackiness of the Wingnut of Wasilla!
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
It is long past time for the American people and everyone else to stop taking this witless, incompetent, deluded, self-anointed, airheaded nincompoop seriously. It is evidence of a far-flung pathology that some significant proportion of the American populace consider Palin capable of intelligently managing the complex affairs of this nation or of any other, with the possible exception of the so-called "Tea Party Nation." These latest utterances on Iraq confirm indubitably the wackiness of the Wingnut of Wasilla!


Wow you are really getting ridiculous with this Palin stuff. I have no desire to defend Palin, but you're critizing her for something she DIDN'T say. Palin has said and asserted many positions that could be critized and discussed...but this is just juvenile. It really shows you severly lack reading comprehension or you are just genuinely distorting...whatever...

She WAS NOT saying the US should declare war on Iran. She was asked about the chances of Obama being re-elected. She made the point that if he got tough on foriegn policy, it would make it harder to defeat him.

She in no way was saying attacking Iran is what we should do. Read it againg...good grief you can be awfully petty.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
It is long past time for the American people and everyone else to stop taking this witless, incompetent, deluded, self-anointed, airheaded nincompoop seriously. It is evidence of a far-flung pathology that some significant proportion of the American populace consider Palin capable of intelligently managing the complex affairs of this nation or of any other, with the possible exception of the so-called "Tea Party Nation." These latest utterances on Iraq confirm indubitably the wackiness of the Wingnut of Wasilla!


Now that we know how you feel about the messenger, what do you think about the message? And she was talking about Iran not Iraq.
quote:
Now that we know how you feel about the messenger, what do you think about the message? And she was talking about Iran not Iraq.


As I said earlier, I find it unacceptable. If she believes that Obama needs to take a tougher stance on foreign policy, that's one issue. She wasn't addressing that. She was suggesting that a sudden change in his stance on Iran could improve his chances of re-election. While I believe that politicians have done this over the years, I find it unacceptable to openly suggest that attacking another country is a viable strategy for winning a re-election.
quote:
It depends on a few things, say he played — I got this from Buchanan — say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.


"Playing the race card" is a common phrase used to refer to a situation where someone uses racial issues as a means of obfuscation. I can only infer that "playing the war card" is the same.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
It depends on a few things, say he played — I got this from Buchanan — say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.


"Playing the race card" is a common phrase used to refer to a situation where someone uses racial issues as a means of obfuscation. I can only infer that "playing the war card" is the same.


OK, I think we're really beginning to nit-pik here...which is more than this really deserves. She was not suggesting that he should play the "war card"...that if he did, it would change things.

If you watch the interview, you can tell when she says "which I would like him to do"...she is refering to supporting Israel, not to attacking Iran.
quote:
OK, I think we're really beginning to nit-pik here...which is more than this really deserves. She was not suggesting that he should play the "war card"...that if he did, it would change things.


I agree. I never meant to imply, and don't really think I did imply, that she WANTS him to attack Iran. However, she did clearly state that doing so, she thought, could improve his re-election chances. While it might be true (and that's debatable), and while politicians may have used the military as a sort of misdirection from other issues in the past, I will never support anyone who suggests that "the war card" is always an option.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
OK, I think we're really beginning to nit-pik here...which is more than this really deserves. She was not suggesting that he should play the "war card"...that if he did, it would change things.


I agree. I never meant to imply, and don't really think I did imply, that she WANTS him to attack Iran. However, she did clearly state that doing so, she thought, could improve his re-election chances. While it might be true (and that's debatable), and while politicians may have used the military as a sort of misdirection from other issues in the past, I will never support anyone who suggests that "the war card" is always an option.


Agreed...absoulutley not. Unfortunately, I've come to believe that many (most, all?) of our recent Presidents, including our current, do use military action as misdirection or political cover...and Palin would be no different in this regard.
quote:
Agreed...absoulutley not. Unfortunately, I've come to believe that many (most, all?) of our recent Presidents, including our current, do use military action as misdirection or political cover...and Palin would be no different in this regard.


I agree as well except for the part Palin would be no different. What do you base this opinion on?
Palin says to Wallace, re: a "war card" play to be reelected: "Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years."

"Change the dynamics," Mrs. Palin states rather analytically after her two offered choices for Wallace. "Change the dynamics!"

What in the world is that woman saying? Give a carte blanche to Israel for any adventure and declare war on a third state? What sort of individual is she to calmly discuss this as a mere "change in dynamics?"

You know, Vladimir Putin can see Iran from his back porch . . .
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Agreed...absoulutley not. Unfortunately, I've come to believe that many (most, all?) of our recent Presidents, including our current, do use military action as misdirection or political cover...and Palin would be no different in this regard.


I agree as well except for the part Palin would be no different. What do you base this opinion on?


I base it on pretty much everything she has said about the war on terror.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
It is long past time for the American people and everyone else to stop taking this witless, incompetent, deluded, self-anointed, airheaded nincompoop seriously.


And yet, beter is obsessed with everything she, and ANYONE around her, does.

Also, isn't it interesting how kind and gentle the left-wingers are?
I find that for every beternU, who obsesses over Sarah Palin with disapproval, there is a balance created by a "conservative" who thinks she can do no wrong. Then there are those like myself. I don't care for her politically, but that's where my disapproval ends. I have felt that those who love her see no difference in people with my point of view and people with beternU's point of view. This simply isn't the case. I enjoyed this article because I believe it shows the difference.

Link

On Alaskan politics and government:

quote:
Most high-paying jobs there were state or federal, and private companies were often dependent on state and federal subsidies for health, education, natural resources or at the time, construction and maintenance of the Alaska pipeline. Among military transplants from the lower 48, there was a sense that if you or your spouse didn’t have a government subsidized job or a retirement check – you might be living at a subsistence level in a place that is cold and dark for half the year. By subsisting, I mean living without the comfort and consumptive variety that most Americans take for granted. By subsisting, I mean a decrease in the overall economic benefit that comes from specialization and trade, due primarily to a geographic scarcity of non-government employed people actually producing useful things.


quote:
But I think that the problem with Sarah is simply that she just hasn’t thought enough about the state, how it lives (parasitically) and why it survives (redistribution and fear). Growing up as a member of the great publicly employed in Alaska is probably the worst way to critically understand the welfare and warfare state; no matter how bad they are, you always love your Mommy and your Daddy.


quote:
She learned that freedom looks like government protecting you. She learned that liberty means doing what is good for the state. As a Republican (in Alaska, there are mostly libertarians, independents and Republicans, and she gravitated to the most statist option), she likes the idea of small government and non-interference. But as a child of the warfare-welfare state, she will build bridges to nowhere at home, and repeatedly blow them up overseas, without a hint of irony.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Palin was commenting that Obama could cynically declare war to stay in power. Betern nutttin, didn't you get this? If not, take yourself down a couple of pegs, in your own estimation.


However she also made a similar comment during the tea party convention last week. She wasn't saying it as a hypothetical outcome then, she used it to say that one of the biggest reasons people hate Obama is because he hasn't done anything to keep the country safe.

The Republican response to big government over Bush's term was that defense was needed to keep the country safe. Defense was and still is the biggest part of the budget and has continued to grow under Obama. But the Tea party is supposed to be about stopping the expansion of government right? So the fact that defense is increasing, along with the other talking points; bailouts, healthcare stimulus, etc should be a problem. Right?

Apparently not since this rarely seems to be discussed, and is the biggest reason why a lot of people say the Tea Party movement IS the Republican party, or at least been hijacked by it. And the call to say it stay 'leaderless' will probably keep people from making the connection, at least for a little while longer.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
I find that for every beternU, who obsesses over Sarah Palin with disapproval, there is a balance created by a "conservative" who thinks she can do no wrong. Then there are those like myself. I don't care for her politically, but that's where my disapproval ends. I have felt that those who love her see no difference in people with my point of view and people with beternU's point of view. This simply isn't the case. I enjoyed this article because I believe it shows the difference.

Link

On Alaskan politics and government:

quote:
Most high-paying jobs there were state or federal, and private companies were often dependent on state and federal subsidies for health, education, natural resources or at the time, construction and maintenance of the Alaska pipeline. Among military transplants from the lower 48, there was a sense that if you or your spouse didn’t have a government subsidized job or a retirement check – you might be living at a subsistence level in a place that is cold and dark for half the year. By subsisting, I mean living without the comfort and consumptive variety that most Americans take for granted. By subsisting, I mean a decrease in the overall economic benefit that comes from specialization and trade, due primarily to a geographic scarcity of non-government employed people actually producing useful things.


quote:
But I think that the problem with Sarah is simply that she just hasn’t thought enough about the state, how it lives (parasitically) and why it survives (redistribution and fear). Growing up as a member of the great publicly employed in Alaska is probably the worst way to critically understand the welfare and warfare state; no matter how bad they are, you always love your Mommy and your Daddy.


quote:
She learned that freedom looks like government protecting you. She learned that liberty means doing what is good for the state. As a Republican (in Alaska, there are mostly libertarians, independents and Republicans, and she gravitated to the most statist option), she likes the idea of small government and non-interference. But as a child of the warfare-welfare state, she will build bridges to nowhere at home, and repeatedly blow them up overseas, without a hint of irony.


This is very true. I for one was someone who is some what sympathetic to her position...especially when she first came on to the national scene.

But the branding of her as a "maverick" does not line up with the facts. And this quote from the article sums up the problem with her and most republicans:

****
"She learned that freedom looks like government protecting you. She learned that liberty means doing what is good for the state."
****

And similarly that's the same problem with democrats...whether you're a "liberal" democrat or a "maverick" republican...they are both ultimatley "statist".

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×