Bells: So you think it would be an accurate assumption that she understands the US economy, foreign policy (beyond being able to see parts of Russia from her backyard), etc? Yes or no? I think she's an intelligent person who will use her intellect to ascertain any answers she needs from the many sources available to the Vice President of the USA. Sorry that wasn't your demanded "Yes or no". Does this mean she was lying in those interviews? Portraying herself as the dumb bimbo? Still does not answer the fact that she was still unable to answer the questions on said economy or the bailout in the debate, does it? Or is she still lying to the public and she really has an in depth understanding of the issues? When you ask a question in a manner that doesn't forecast absolutes about the expected answer, I'll answer them. When you ask bullshit questions like this one, I'll simply tell you to,,,,,, Does McCain really need votes that badly that he'd ask his VP candidate to act like a bimbo to pull in the votes? What does that say about him? Or her for that matter that she'd go along with it.. If, as you are claiming, that she knows and understands the issues and could discuss them and answer questions about them.. Why didn't she? When you ask a question in a manner that doesn't forecast absolutes about the expected answer, I'll answer them. When you ask bullshit questions like this one, I'll simply tell you to......... Is it possible that she is pandering to the voters in the hope that they will want a simple soccer mum who winks at them, grins at them like an idiot and bakes them cookies? When you ask a question in a manner that doesn't forecast absolutes about the expected answer, I'll answer them. When you ask bullshit questions like this one, I'll simply tell you to,,,,,,,,. Is the American voter base that shallow that they are able to overlook important issues like the economy and instead, vote for the winking fool who tells them just what they want to hear, even if it is false? When you ask a question in a manner that doesn't forecast absolutes about the expected answer, I'll answer them. When you ask bullshit questions like this one, I'll simply tell you to ....... So, the result of your personal attack and pointless, bullshit questions was to recieve the only answers you deserve. You seem to be nothing more than another net asshole. Go fuck with someone else. I'm not in the mood for your childish bullshit.
More right wing whacko stuff. I used the word "I" four times in my post. I used the word "you" ten times...real abuse of the "I" word...real narcism there? You sound a bit dilusional and desperate to moi.
Did she use her intellect when she gave this answer? Did she come up with that brilliant piece of intelligence herself? Or did she use said intelligence to "ascertain any answers she needs from the many sources available"? Hmmmm.. maybe she should have winked a bit while answering that question..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I found this article to be highly entertaining, if not disturbing. Was it her intelligence that shone through when she urged a wheelchair bound person to stand up so people could see her? Or was it her intellimagence?
Who put the bug in your bonnet, pardner? I calls em like I sees em, and as we say back home, that dog don't hunt.
You make me remember a small ditty from my childhood: "A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still". It's pointless for you and I to discuss this. Goodbye.
When I see post after post of opinions from people who haven't a clue about the reality of a real-time "debate" such as this one, it pisses me off just a little. My personal opinion is that much more would be accomplished by having each candidate and the moderator discuss the issues in a MINIMUM four hour long block of discussions. Perhaps 30 minute segments, each segment covering a different major issue. The short one hour block of back and forth political banter that took place is pointless. It resolves nothing. It explains nothing. It tells us nothing real about the candidates and is nothing but a waste of time. Then people who have almost no idea of the real workings of political life get on with their posts about how "stupid" one of the candidates are. I can guarantee you that neither of them is stupid. Given the amount of money, resources and advisers that will become available to the person who wins the Vice Presidency, either of them would make a good VP. The platform that they must hold to is what the basic argument is about, not the person. All this personal bullshit about "winking" and "stupid" is just that; Bullshit. I'd like to imagine "joepistole", Bells, or even you or I in the same exact position as the candidates, in front of the same camera with the same exact amount of time to prepare. How would we have appeared? Could the people on this same group then rip your ass apart and dissect every syllable of your words for content? Sure they could. Parts of what you would say or how you would appear or the manner in which you said some things would look just as bad. Would that make you "stupid"? Would that make you "ignorant"? To some, the answer would be a resounding YES to both questions. To place much importance to that farce of a "debate" would be a real mistake. I see lots of people here making that mistake.
A simple yes or no will suffice. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But since you seem incapable of answering, it's ok. I understand why you would not want to answer.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The difference NGM is that no one in this forum or thread is running for the VP position. If someone is running for the VP position, we would expect them to be qualified. I am not qualified. I suspect others here are not qualified nor do they represent themselves to be qualifed to be vice president. Palin is running for vice president and presenting herself as qualifed. That is a BIG difference.
I agree that Palin's answers on the economy were evasive and it pissed me off. She could have hung Obama's connection with Raines around Biden's neck like an albatross, she could have pointed out that it was the Democrats as far back as the seventies who have been the driving force behind the ever loosening standards to get a mortgage. And it was those same Democrats who consistently resisted all attempts at reform. Even president Clinton has said as much: Bill Clinton: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/260301 But the point is this, it's not all about how well versed one is with the issues. Biden is more experienced than Palin, and McCain is more experienced than Obama. (note the Republicans at least have the novice at the bottom of the ticket). The important thing is what principles guide you. Obama is, basically, a socialist. And I'll take an average Joe or Jane off the street over a socialist any day. I don't care how good a speaker the socialist is or where he went to school. I believe it was the late, great William F. Buckley who said he'd rather be governed by the first 100 people in the phone book than by the Harvard faculty, and I couldn't agree more.
The whole thing is staged, actually. Republicans and Democrats argue with each other in public and the accusations fly. Because without that dynamic, the public (joe, hockey, six-pack, etc) wouldn't have anything to distract them. The politicos need to present a theme of confrontation, disagreement and so on, so they can get on with all those backroom deals that keep things ticking over, and keeps those barrels full.
I strongly suggest she did not raise the myth of the Raines-Obama allegations because she did not want the scrutiny of the press on the issue. It is much better to make back alley false allegations than to make those same allegations in the light of day. Both Obama and Raines have denied the allegations from the McCain Campaign but that does not stop the Republicans from spreading this false nonsense...more koolaid for the unwashed masses. And there is no evidence to support the allegations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines
I "learned" that, new to me, Palin appears to be a genuine believer in her own mission. Appearances can of course deceive. You appear to have little to offer but insult for other posters, and brag for yourself. Most of your posts contain nothing else. We've seen a lot of that around here, as you may not know if you are indeed new, and it amounts to an abuse of the forum. But appearances can deceive. Do you have any other reason for being here? The fact that she is a tool of the crowd around her is a large part of the problem with someone like her. Consider that crowd - straight from the Rove and Cheney cabal. She was not capable of that complex a lie in that format. She has only had a couple of weeks to prepare. It's one thing to make screwball counterfactual assertions on some internet forum, it's quite another to take on Joe Biden, who was there, on live TV, with BS that you don't know much about. A chance for Biden to list all the relevant deregulations, name half of Mccain's aides and McCain himself in their relevant roles, bring up Keating and all manner of ancient history from the same general era, and connect that shitpile to the bailout just then hanging over the heads of a very angry swarm of taxpayers, on live TV with only the very ignorant and suddenly scriptless Palin to counter, was not an attractive option. I'm not surprised Palin ducked that entire issue.
Bizarre hypotheticals confused with actual events, and taken as the basis - even the evidence - of future arguments. Not Ron Paul. Not Chuck Hagel.
iceaura: I "learned" that, new to me, Palin appears to be a genuine believer in her own mission. Appearances can of course deceive. What a crock of bull. You're trying to impress. You think you can tell if someone is sincere by that staged little show? You're easy. You appear to have little to offer but insult for other posters, and brag for yourself. Most of your posts contain nothing else. We've seen a lot of that around here, as you may not know if you are indeed new, and it amounts to an abuse of the forum. But appearances can deceive. Do you have any other reason for being here? Who are you to judge me? I've come here for real talk. Not the patent bullshit you're pumping. You've never met me. Who are you trying to convince, your little audience here? I insult where insult is deserved. If you don't want me to insult you, then be real and drop the phony bullshit when you post. YOU are an abuse of the forum. When you post nonsense instead of something truly thought out, you're wasting everyone's time. I've not "bragged" about anything. I speak the truth of what I think, instead of saying what I think will impress, as you do. The fact that she is a tool of the crowd around her is a large part of the problem with someone like her. Consider that crowd - straight from the Rove and Cheney cabal. More slogans and bullshit. Talk facts, not innuendo. Speak with specifics, not generalities. What in the hell are you actually trying to say? She was not capable of that complex a lie in that format. She has only had a couple of weeks to prepare. It's one thing to make screwball counterfactual assertions on some internet forum, it's quite another to take on Joe Biden, who was there, on live TV, with BS that you don't know much about. You have no idea what her capabilities are. Neither do you know squat about the subjects you're critiquing. How can YOU judge someone else on the content of subjects you know very little about? You're phony as a three dollar bill man. You're on an internet group trying to impress someone with your fucking wit. You're failing. It makes you sound like an idiot. A chance for Biden to list all the relevant deregulations, name half of Mccain's aides and McCain himself in their relevant roles, bring up Keating and all manner of ancient history from the same general era, and connect that shitpile to the bailout just then hanging over the heads of a very angry swarm of taxpayers, on live TV with only the very ignorant and suddenly scriptless Palin to counter, was not an attractive option. I'm not surprised Palin ducked that entire issue. You touch on a few of the past parts of the problem from some source you've read on the net somewhere and think you're an internet expert on the fucking subject now. Again, you're full of shit. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Where have you studied economics? How long? What was your GPA while learning this subject? What? You've never studied economics? Who the fuck would have guessed by your "know it all" bullshit you're spreading here? Son, blow that crap out of your ass. Start talking facts and you might impress me. Keep talking the general bullshit you have so far and I'll place you right where you belong; in the bullshit artists drawer. You make Biden and crew sound as if they're totally harmless and blameless in this banking screw-up. Get this; They aren't. There isn't a politician in DC that hasn't had a hand in how this has turned out. Either by active participation in it's propagation or by standing by with full knowledge and no actions to stop it. I keep hearing the bullshit "I warned them, I warned them". What bull. You take it live and shout it loud to the media and they'll make it heard. Stand in the hallway and talk to some nobody about it and you get what's happened. BOTH sides of this problem have come from the greed of those who have the money. As long as it was padding their own accounts with profits, nobody said anything very loud. Now the end game has happened and they all want to point at the other guy. Just as you are.
Illustration of this: and answers this: So: "No", then. The similarity with Palin's content-free attack style in the scripted "debate" is interesting. Is it possible that her fans identify with her, in that regard? They see themselves talking as she does, and being condescended to and despised as she is, and they circle the wagons ?
The new religion? Glenn Greenwald considered this point recently: We see this sort of behavior in a number of our conservative neighbors here. They demonstrate their "superiority" by refusing to support their arguments—as if whatever claims they make, no matter how strange, counterintuitive, or counterfactual are self-evident—and project onto those who disagree with them a blind and stupid hatred that, in turn, justifies the contempt with which they regard their chosen enemies. I suppose I could name names, but why pick those fights at the moment? Certainly, we can consider that outcome if others so insist, but for now it is sufficient to note that your analysis has certain merit at least insofar as you are referring to a fairly common phenomenon among the American right wing. ____________________ Notes: Greenwald, Glenn. "The right's two-pronged religion of rage and self-pity". Unclaimed Territory. October 2, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/02/self_absorption/index.html
Hell man, you don't need a forum. You ask and answer your own questions with the conclusions you choose. You're very typical of an Obama loving voter. You know almost nothing of your subject. What you do know is selectively gathered from people who think exactly as you do and you try to make anyone who dares to disagree with you look as though they don't have anything to say. Basically, you're full of shit.
The most common practice I see among the Liberal factions of the USA and most other western countries is that desire they all have of the socialistic control of all things by government. Liberals everywhere have one thing in common; they simply don't care what anyone else has to say IF that person is daring to contradict the Liberal desires for a controlled society of pie-in-the-sky, "Everyone is my friend", "Let's share everything we have" ideals that are equally impossible and lacking in common sense. Liberals will proudly state how YOU are wrong. How YOU don't do things right. How YOU have messed everything up. How THEY will do it all better. However, when you corner one of these rabid, frothing Liberals, all you hear is the same socialistic slogans and cookie-cutter statements that would be more suitable coming from a ten year old child. The viewpoint of Liberals is, in fact, very childlike. Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter explains this trait among Liberals very well: **** The Psychodynamics of the Radical Liberal Mind by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD The first step toward an in-depth understanding of adult behavior is to comprehend its origins in childhood. Whether adaptive or maladaptive, the enduring patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that define adult personality begin in the early years of life. In fact, our earliest experiences with caretakers and others, acting on inherited temperament factors, strongly determine our later personality traits, including those expressed in political values and beliefs. The dispositions of the liberal mind are no exception: his hopes and fears, beliefs and passions, values and morals are in great measure the legacy of his childhood from birth through adolescence. The traits that define who he is are the traits that lead him to pursue particular goals in the political arena and to use particular methods to achieve them. The radical liberal mind’s goals are now familiar, of course, but another brief summary will prove useful in highlighting their essentially childlike nature. Just noted were the grandiose goals of providing for everyone’s material welfare and healthcare, protecting everyone’s self-esteem correcting all social and political disadvantages, educating all citizens, and eliminating all class distinctions. In his pursuit of these goals, he intends to construct a universal human family, one united in bonds of mutual love, concern, caretaking and tolerance. Through drastic government action the radical liberal seeks the following: * A powerful parental government to provide everyone with a good life and a caring presence * An elite corps of surrogate parents that will manage the lives of the people through approximately equal distributions of goods and services, just as real parents provide equally for the needs of their children * A guarantee of material security from the state, similar to that which a child expects from his parents * A form of parental social justice that cures or mitigates all states of deprivation, inequality, suffering and disadvantage * A guarantee that negative rights for the protection of individual liberty will yield to positive rights that reduce or eliminate inequalities of wealth, social status and power, just as good parents would balance benefits to their children * Government laws that will punish the “haves” for their excesses and compensate the “have-nots” for the pangs of envy, just as good parents would do for their children * Government directives from wise and caring officials that channel the citizen’s initiative and industry through social programs and tax incentives, just as wise parents determine the directions of the family’s labors * Government policy that instructs the people in how to relate to each other politically, just as good parents instruct their children in how to conduct themselves properly * Permissive laws passed by sympathetic legislators that lower the obligations of contracts, ease codes of acceptable conduct, and relax the burdens of established institutions such as marriage and adoption procedures, just as indulgent parents would do * Government welfare programs that free the citizen-child from the duties of altruism, just as parents do * An international caring agenda that will enhance the family of nations by understanding everyone’s hardships, tolerating destructive actions by others, and empathizing with aggressors to bring them to the negotiating table, just as good parents do in resolving family disputes These and other goals dear to the modern liberal heart are remarkable for the childhood needs they address and the adult needs they ignore. As noted in more detail below, what the radical liberal mind really longs for, as revealed in his political goals, is a child’s relationship to a loving family whose caretaking compensates him for the injuries he suffered in his early years. He seeks all of this in the contemporary political arena. The major problem he faces is that a substantial portion of the population is still competent: it is a population that deeply reveres individual liberty, readily accepts its responsibilities, and passionately opposes its destruction. It is not about to yield to the liberal’s mad dream. Because competent people know that they can direct their own lives and provide for their own security through voluntary cooperation, and because they love a world of freedom in which to live as they choose, they have no need for, and indeed vehemently reject, the oppressive intrusions of liberal government. What the competent citizen wants, in contrast to the modern liberal, is a coherent and dependable structure for ordered liberty, secured by a limited government that respects the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual and protects his property rights against the constant invasions of collectivism. The liberal mind rejects this prescription on principle and attempts to overthrow it in government policy. What the liberal seeks in order to feel secure is the modern welfare state with its endless guarantees and endless regulations. This goal is literally fantastic in its own right. But equally irrational is the method by which he attempts to achieve it. He is willing to use any kind of government power, including power which destroys the foundations of civilized freedom, in order to get what he demands: government insured safety and security over the entire lifespan, along with accommodation to his neurotic demands. He seeks through the state that degree of coercion needed to redress the trauma, injustice, helplessness and humiliation experienced at the hands of his original caretakers. He hopes to do this by passing laws that indulge his impulses and exempt him from the proper obligations of mature adulthood. Considered in its entirety, the liberal’s goal of making the state into an ideal parent/family and his method of achieving it by compelling competent people to do his bidding constitute the radical liberal agenda. Above all, the agenda is a blueprint for the use of irresistible government power. Driven by his irrational needs and desires, the radical liberal mind is more than willing to sacrifice the noble structure of liberty that originally defined America for the shabby asylum of the modern welfare state.
When I listened to a part of the "debate" I only heard the same DOGMA and DIATRIBE that has been spewed by BOTH parties for decades, nothing new was ever said that I heard. Ever since these "debates" started with Obama and McCain , the rhetoric has been the same from both sides claiming they have the answers to the way everything should be done but neither will do what they say...because they really never do. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
