View Full Version : Palin on God and War
The GOP's VP pick tells Charles Gibson what she meant by her "holy war" comments:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=9696725
mikey.
09-12-2008, 11:24 AM
I don't care what she meant.
It was a brilliant politican sham picking her. But insane, jsut retarded. I would go on and on here but here; I said most of what I had to say there.
http://michael-kane.com/hockey-mom-palin/
ScottL
09-12-2008, 12:56 PM
Could someone tell me what she said? "We're on a mission from God -- I would not presume to speak for God. My son is going "over there" for God -- I don't know if he's going there for God. What I really meant was I was quoting a past beloved President so paint me with the same brush. I'm proud of my son. Support our troops. Rah, Rah, Rah."
Did I get most everything? Really inspiring.
I don't care what she meant.
It was a brilliant politican sham picking her. But insane, jsut retarded. I would go on and on here but here; I said most of what I had to say there.
http://michael-kane.com/hockey-mom-palin/
You are absolutely right to question her experience and preparedness, but we are either going to elect Obama or McCain, so let's delve into this a bit further.
What advantage would Obama bring over Palin?
Neither has much experience. Obama wasn't elected to the Federal Senate until 2004. Senators effectively sponsor and vote on legislation.
Palin wasn't elected Governor of Alaska until 2006. Governors are the ceremonial and political heads of state for their territories. Palin is effectively the President of Alaska.
Palin has executive experience. Obama has legislative experience. That already makes Palin better equipped to run a country should the need arise.
As far as I know she is the only candidate on either of the two tickets with executive experience.
Palin also has a great deal of experience in the energy sector where she served as Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
When polled, this years voters have repetitively cited the energy crisis as one of the most important issues of the election.
mikey.
09-13-2008, 02:26 PM
You are absolutely right to question her experience and preparedness, but we are either going to elect Obama or McCain, so let's delve into this a bit further.
What advantage would Obama bring over Palin?
Neither has much experience. Obama wasn't elected to the Federal Senate until 2004. Senators effectively sponsor and vote on legislation.
Obama has 7 years of State Legislator, 2 years of State Senate, and 3 years of U.S Senate.
Palin wasn't elected Governor of Alaska until 2006. Governors are the ceremonial and political heads of state for their territories. Palin is effectively the President of Alaska.
Alaska yeah? Come on, the Mayor of Detroit City governs over a bigger population. You just can't give her credit for that, it's not like she does anything herself, do you have any idea how many hockey games she attended last year alone? Ok go look it up, dig it up and do the math, tell me if a president can afford to go to almost a hundred games. Number is out there somewhere. And i know that's a weak point, but it's part of the entire thing, shes just NOT president material.
Palin has executive experience. Obama has legislative experience. That already makes Palin better equipped to run a country should the need arise.
Forgetting that McCaine has no executive experience? Pointing out Palin does irrelevant. You need to have both an executive experience and a legislative one to run a country right , known fact no? Common sense? Sure both Obama and Palin don't fit there, but that just erases that point from the argument. If you do want to nit pick, then here goes.
She was mayor of a town of less than 7,000 people for six years (i think there's more than 7thousand living in a 2 blog radius of my home back in MI *smirk* ); he was a member of the state legislature that helped govern the nation’s third largest city for seven and has been a member of the US senate for almost 4 years now while sexy mamma palin has been a Governor of a state with 1.2 people per square mile for just under two years.
Being Governor does prepare a person for part of the Presidency, but not for the whole thing, and the same can be said of the Senate. So let’s not try to suggest one is better than the other – especially since there are at least 16 American cities with larger populations than Alaska ;)
If you want to get down to statistics, 4 of our last 5 presidents were Governors, ha, but that just means they're pretty good candidates, not necessarily good presidents right? "Jimmy Carter was, well, Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan helped speed up the end of the Cold War, but also left us with a then-record deficit and was either complicit or negligent in Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton botched health care negotiations with Congress and left office with no major accomplishments. George W. Bush appointed hacks like Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzalez, and Don Rumsfeld, mismanaged Iraq and Katrina (did a piss poor job would be a better way of phrasing that), and left both the Constitution and America’s reputation in tatters. Just what about these four Governors is supposed to fire me up about executive experience? BS.
Anyone who excludes character (and obviously policy) from the discussion is turning a blind eye to both history and electoral politics
PS. She’s under investigation for illegally removing a state trooper from the force, read about it, think there's something about a public safety commissioner being fired by her too, after abusing her pwer to do so. I mean she's already heading down the lane of corruption, even for a woman heh. That turns me on but it does not change my mind about her as president, not one bit.
As far as I know she is the only candidate on either of the two tickets with executive experience.
Yeah? um i don't think so. Joe Biden has probably gained more executive experience running the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations committee staffs than Sarah Palin gained running the village of Wasilla – a job Palin herself said was “not rocket science.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palin-on-her-own-executiv_n_123380.html)
You sick of me yet m? :D
Palin also has a great deal of experience in the energy sector where she served as Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
When polled, this years voters have repetitively cited the energy crisis as one of the most important issues of the election.
Honestly, i've run out of steam, more so lack of interest in discussing this woman, I mean read the above, if you still don't see any of my points then it's useless discussing this further ;)
Oh and she's a gun lover! yay! It may become easier for your future kids to pick up a gun and shoot their teacher at school that allows corporal punishment eh? :D (low blow there I know, but it made me laugh and i needed it sorry!!)
There is a rather significant difference between legislative and executive experience.
Legislative positions groom their representatives to be team players. Executive positions groom their representatives for leadership.
Obama was one of 61 State Senators. Now he's one of 100 members of the US Senate. Be it State or Federal, a Senator doesn't have the ability to wipe his nose without the approval of the majority. So yeah, great! Obama is a Senator. He doesn't appear to have broken anything significant during his time in office. He seems to be a decent Senator. Re-elect him for the Senate. Electing him President would be like allowing a paperboy to manage a publishing company.
Palin is the only candidate with real executive experience. She doesn't have to clear her decisions with 50 other governors. Watching you sound off about her "corruption" is hilarious considering her excellent track record for combating corruption within her own party. Don't even get me started on the Obama-Rezko scandal.
McCain's decision to select Palin may have been an act of brilliance. Palin has been an excellent VP candidate if only for her role in pointing out Obama's deficiencies. It has been funny to see the Democratic Presidential candidate aggressively running against the Republican VP candidate while the Republican Presidential Candidate focuses on the real issues. ;)
McCain is a tough old man. I don't see him dying in office. Even the Viet Cong couldn't kill the old bastard.
firetown
09-14-2008, 01:34 AM
Whether Palin is the best choice as a VP is not the discission here. I won't even try to argue against what has been said against her. But we are here to chose the lesser of 2 evils.
we are here to chose the lesser of 2 evils.
Or the greater of the two evils, depending on your end goal.
mikey.
09-14-2008, 02:38 AM
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
No one is forcing you to post. :confused:
mikey.
09-14-2008, 02:52 AM
Sure, but I mean your argument... I just can't see it holding any points of value to be honest.
Palin is not prepared, and she wont be when the time comes for it. I don't see her staring down putin and other world leaders and i'm so not trying to play the racist card here, promise. I mean she'll have the freakin nuclear launch codes you know? I just can't trust her like that...can you?
Sure, but I mean your argument... I just can't see it holding any points of value to be honest.
Palin is not prepared, and she wont be when the time comes for it. I don't see her staring down putin and other world leaders and i'm so not trying to play the racist card here, promise. I mean she'll have the freakin nuclear launch codes you know? I just can't trust her like that...can you?
Thank you Matt Damon. I loved you in Good Will Hunting!
If you have any new arguments to add, I'd be more than willing to entertain them. ;)
mikey.
09-14-2008, 02:56 AM
m, what else do you know about this woman other than what you can find in wikipedia and what McCaine and gang spoon feed people?
I honestly see more of what's been going on for the past 8 years if McCaine makes it..specially with palin taggin along for the ride.
mikey.
09-14-2008, 02:59 AM
Thank you Matt Damon. I loved you in Good Will Hunting!
If you have any new arguments to add, I'd be more than willing to entertain them. ;)
LMAO. Nice com back m. A little out of steam there but nice. I mean I guess I know where you stand now in terms of who you'll be voting for ;) No point to argue on opposite sides of the fence eh? :D
m, what else do you know about this woman other than what you can find in wikipedia and what McCaine and gang spoon feed people?
Aww ...you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. And I was being so nice to you! ;)
mikey.
09-14-2008, 03:07 AM
Aww ...you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. And I was being so nice to you! ;)
Not at all, your read what I asked out of context there. What I was attempting to say is, there's not enough about Palin out there to justify her making it this far :) Regardless, what do I know on the matter? ;) me bow down to your greatness there. </exits thread with tail between legs> heh
What I was attempting to say is, there's not enough about Palin out there to justify her making it this far :)
That's mostly irrelevant. She has made it this far. Whether she's a viable option is up to this years registered voters.
Regardless, what do I know on the matter? ;) me bow down to your greatness there. </exits thread with tail between legs> heh
You have my permission to withdraw. *wave of the hand* ;)
firetown
09-14-2008, 04:13 AM
Or the greater of the two evils, depending on your end goal.
True. And we can also say we want to focus on one canditate's flaws and elect a total POS because we cannot sit back and look at the real issues. Obama has one thing going and that is the hype. No substance. "I will end the war while I am president". What a moron. The end of the war needs to depend on when it makes sense and not when he thinks it's time to re-elect him.
Obama is the only candidate I have not respected ever. He is anti American, closer to Islam than any other religion and his wife hates America. He also has an IQ of a high schooler running for class president (or less).
Great choice guys. Go vote :rolleyes:
Shut off your brain and rock the vote :rolleyes:
kerrin
10-06-2008, 05:53 PM
Or the greater of the two evils, depending on your end goal.
If one continues to vote for the lesser or greater of two evils one will eventually forget they are voting for evil. And in the end you are still voting for evil.
If one continues to vote for the lesser or greater of two evils one will eventually forget they are voting for evil. And in the end you are still voting for evil.
How does one forget that? ;)
kerrin
10-06-2008, 06:31 PM
How does one forget that?
Repetition and believing it is "good" to do so. ;)
Repetition and believing it is "good" to do so. ;)
Lesser of the two evils != "good"
kerrin
10-06-2008, 06:36 PM
Lesser of the two evils != "good"
True. But why do you continue doing something that promotes an evil?
Is it not because you think it is good to do so?
True. But why do you continue doing something that promotes an evil?
Is it not because you think it is good to do so?
Your use of value judgments is odd, as is your assertion that repetition is constant. It seems to imply that voters don't actively attempt to alter the focus of the government to better meet their needs.
When voting, one typically analyzes all facets of the options presented, lobbies for the options not presented, and ultimately makes a selection based upon the perceived values and impacts of their actions.
Perfection doesn't exist. The use of a graduated scale between good and bad is mostly useless. Everyone has an agenda. People will attempt to satisfy their agendas by any means necessary.
kerrin
10-06-2008, 07:12 PM
It seems to imply that voters don't actively attempt to alter the focus of the government to better meet their needs.
Yes. With constant voting within the current two-party system the voter fails to truely "alter the focus of the government to better meet their needs."
When voting, one typically analyzes all facets of the options presented, lobbies for the options not presented, and ultimately makes a selection based upon the perceived values and impacts of their actions.
Perhaps in the micro but not in the macro sense.
Perfection doesn't exist. The use of a graduated scale between good and bad is mostly useless. Everyone has an agenda. People will attempt to satisfy their agendas by any means necessary.
Agreed.
Yes. With constant voting within the current two-party system the voter fails to truely "alter the focus of the government to better meet their needs."
There's always Ron Paul.... Well maybe not this year. ;)
kerrin
10-06-2008, 07:20 PM
He will be my write in. He is decidedly not the lesser of two evils. Even if he was one of the two "choices" he would still not be a lesser or greater evil. Not perfect just the right direction.
I know he won't win but America needs a change on a macro level. ;)
John Scott
10-10-2008, 07:52 AM
Interesting thread.
Palin.. Huh. I love her. But I suspect that she a neo con.
kerrin
10-10-2008, 06:05 PM
I love her.
Because of your neophilia? ;)
I suspect that she a neo con.
She, being so green, may not even know that she's a neocon (Alaska's 7 people didn't need neocon political philosophy to be governed).
If she makes it to the white house I image she'll assimilate to the party's popular political philosophies—that being neocon—she'll be surrounded by them. Several of McCain's advisors are neocon's (Robert Kagan, Max Boot, John R. Bolton, & Randy Scheunemann). Oh, but wait they are both "Mavericks"... all should be fine.
Palin has said she agrees with Cheney's expanded power of the VP office, which is very troubling!