FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

sink

The Raven. wrote: »

Whatever one might think of the particular bias of American Thinker, there is no denying that the following quote aptly describes much of what has been expressed (or kept quiet), on this forum. It is interesting to read the full article to see an American view of a European perspective.

What Europeans are Saying about Sarah Palin



http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/what_europeans_are_saying_abou.html

Hmm I do see a few double standards being practiced however I do agree with this one in particular.

S&#252 wrote: »

"McCain used to look like an ideal candidate for the party. The conservative free-spirit repeatedly defied the current president and thereby emanated seriousness and self-assurance.... Sarah Palin threatens to demolish [McCain's] halo.... The lingering impression [is] that McCain called this fresh face to his side purely out of strategic campaign calculations.... Palin's selection comes across as imprudent, unserious and, yes, dangerous.... McCain has miscalculated: those Democrats who were disappointed by Hillary's failure and might possibly have voted for the Republican veteran will hardly be lured by the ultraconservative pro-lifer.... McCain only hopes that the evangelical base will gather behind him with new fury. That is important, but not enough to win the election in November. The payoff for this deputy from the right is less than the price of the risk that McCain runs with the center. Sarah Palin will cost the Republican Party dearly."

Mainly because I am one of those centrists who have been turned off McCain due to Palin.

BenjAii

Overheal wrote: »

the Mormon thing made him unrelatable to most americans.

I'm curious why Mormonism is seen as too wierd, but Palins Pentacostal beliefs about the imminent "end times" are not. Especially as her church says she is doing Gods work in pushing for drilling in Alaska, because Alaska will need all the oil to help the thousands who will flock there from the coming armageddon when it will be a "refuge state"

Surely that would be viewed as pretty wacko by most people ?

brianthebard

BenjAii wrote: »

I'm curious why Mormonism is seen as too wierd, but Palins Pentacostal beliefs about the imminent "end times" are not. Especially as her church says she is doing Gods work in pushing for drilling in Alaska, because Alaska will need all the oil to help the thousands who will flock there from the coming armageddon when it will be a "refuge state"

Surely that would be viewed as pretty wacko by most people ?

I would say that its because knowledge of her cult came after the fact of her nomination, whereas it was common knowledge that Romney was mormon. Also an awful lot of American protestants/christians read the bible literally, and believe that the Armageddon is coming at some stage in our lifetime. (probably soon after Palin becomes president).

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, this would have been the winning ticket indeed. I said this in a post way before the Dems made their choices. But if the Dems had courage, and flair, Biden could follow up on his speech of a few days past, where he said Clinton was more qualified than he, then bow out in favour of her. Then the Dems could replay this speech, like a broken record, along with the comments made by Palin (yesterday?), that Hilliary was qualified. But the Dems would never make such a bold move, a move that would unite the Obama half and the Clinton half of their party, to where they would not need to worry about the minority of registered Republicans, or the even smaller number of Independents (which, if I was voting in this US presidential election farce, would be my non-party of choice).

I had an interesting discussion with a born again Republican, who would make the for profit prophet Carl Rove praise the Oval Office. I asked if we could focus upon and consider Palin's qualifications to be VP, and President, should 72 year old McCain kick the bucket. When I brought up Palin's obvious naivete regarding foreign relations (2002 Bush Doctrine, or any doctrine that pertains to international relations), I got "But Obama..."

I then tried to get them back on task, saying that we were discussing Palin's qualifications, not Obama's. When I asked if her isolation in the very small population Arctic state might be a factor to her being away from the crossroads of international politics, I once again got the response, "Obama does not..."

For some reason, this Palin advocate could not address their candidate's extraordinary lack of foreign relations experience without attacking Obama's lack of this or that. Why is that? Could it be that political campaigning demands that people, who may have otherwise active minds, suspend their judgment to where they cannot criticize their holier-than-thou candidate? That they have to raise them up above us all to super human heights to justify their filling of the two most powerful offices in the most powerful country in the world? Psychology has a concept for this kind of behaviour that deals with inconsistencies between the make believe qualified candidate and the real unqualified candidate (be they Obama or Palin, which are both unqualifed). It is called cognitive dissonance. It occurs after making a foolish choice, no matter the choice, which results in the person grasping at straws, per se, that will support their foolish decision, rather than to face the facts that they made a poor choice.

I see cognitive dissonance in both party platforms, that's way I think this 2008 US presidential election is a complete farce that focuses more on smearing the opposing candidate with lipstick or whatever. Winning the election for their newly made gods, be they Republican or Democrat, is more important than addressing the important issues of recession, rising unemployment, bank failures, a million or more housing foreclosures, 20% of the population without health care insurance, and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where many innocent women and children are being killed on a daily basis.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know how these exist. It should be like matter and anti-matter, water and alkali metal they should explode and annihilate each other.

The only explanation I can offer is that they are not motivated by issues but entirely by personality like they're voting for American Idol or Big Brother. It says a lot about the state of American democracy.

Dave!

She's so damn hot though.................

Overheal

BenjAii wrote: »

I'm curious why Mormonism is seen as too wierd, but Palins Pentacostal beliefs about the imminent "end times" are not. Especially as her church says she is doing Gods work in pushing for drilling in Alaska, because Alaska will need all the oil to help the thousands who will flock there from the coming armageddon when it will be a "refuge state"

Surely that would be viewed as pretty wacko by most people ?

Not as whacko as sticking your multiple wives right in the face of Monogomy. Not as whacko as claiming god told you to invade Iraq.

Black Swan

sink wrote: »

The only explanation I can offer is that they are not motivated by issues but entirely by personality like they're voting for American Idol or Big Brother. It says a lot about the state of American democracy.

Indeed! A sad review on the so-called leading nation of democracy? Truer words have not been spoken in this forum, and it's a comic-tragedy to see both American presidential platforms. Comics smearing each other with lipstick, and advocates of either side blindly arguing that their candidate will save the world with their over-blown personas. But for the world it is tragic, as we in Ireland and in other countries will be subject to the policies of these incompetent fools, with real consequences for us.

Zaph

Overheal wrote: »

Not as whacko as sticking your multiple wives right in the face of Monogomy.

Other than some breakaway sects not recognised by the mainstream Church of Latter Day Saints, Mormons haven't been polygamous in over a century. Anyone engaging in it is immediately excommunicated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BenjAii

Overheal wrote: »

Not as whacko as claiming god told you to invade Iraq.

but she does believe that ....

Martyr

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

martyr wrote:

Has no experience? there really is no point arguing with that

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

martyr wrote:

Look it up, i'm sure you're well able to research..

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well, if you say Obama has no experience, you've more or less admitted you know nothing about Obama.

The only sources of information you've cited/quoted to date in support of your opinions (on this forum) are from conservative UK newspapers.Thats about it really.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

But you haven't researched, so how would you know what experience he has?

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Speak for yourself.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If you're speaking of Sarah Palin, couldn't have put it better myself.

martyr wrote:

Please cite sources of Sarah Palin and John McCains experience.

Still waiting..

BTW: I'm neither for or against either of the candidates, but i believe Obama is the most experienced, thats why i'm arguing here with you.
It makes no difference to me who wins.

All you people saying Obama has no experience..its simply not the case.

sink

Martyr wrote: »

BTW: I'm neither for or against either of the candidates, but i believe Obama is most experienced, thats why i'm arguing here with you.
It makes no difference to me who wins.

All you people saying Obama has no experience..its simply not the case.

I wondering what your definition of experience is exactly? Because by any measure McCain is by far the most experienced. So far you whole contribution to the debate has been one big prevarication and I am speaking as someone who is leaning to Obama.

Martyr

Well here is my question, sink.

Have you actually taken the time to learn about Barack Obama? Apart from what you've heard on TV/Radio stations and read about him in the newspapers like the Daily Mail or The Times..seriously?

All i did was use a search engine to look up information about those 3 people and i came to the conclusion that Obama was the most suitable person to lead the U.S for the next 4 years.

Not because he's black or a democrat, he simply is the most sensible choice by far given his background.

And no, i won't cite information for donegalfella, because he probably knows i'm right anyway.

But obviously donegalfella is a republican supporter, so its obvious you can't have a serious unbiased discussion about who is best for president.

If Sarah Palin were a democrat, republican supporters would tear her apart.

As i said, it really makes no difference to my life who gets in power, but from what i read, Obama would be more suitable.

sink

Martyr wrote: »

Well here is my question, sink.

Have you actually taken the time to learn about Barack Obama? Apart from what you've heard on TV/Radio stations and read about him in the newspapers like the Daily Mail or The Times..seriously?

Yes probably more than most. I don't read the daily mail, I do read The Times which is decidedly pro Obama.

He majored in political science specializing in international relations at Columbia where he recieved a BA. He worked for a while as a research assistant in New York. He later moved to Chicago and worked as a community organiser helping poor blacks where he was inspired by the civil rights movement. That spurred him on to became a Lawyer and he went to Harvard Law School. His grades were excellent and he was selected for the position of editor of the Harvard law review. He graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude, which is an extremely prestigious qualification. He worked for a while as a civil rights lawyer and later lectured at the University of Chicago. He ran for the Illinois sentate as a democrat in 1997 and was elected, he served there for 7 years were he worked on social welfare reform and civil rights legislation. He ran for the US senate in 2004 and was elected in 2005 were he resides today. He introduced gun control legislation and federal spending transparency legislation. He has consistently voted liberal.

My opinion of him is that he is very intelligent and knowledgeable but he has not much executive experience. Executive experience is where one would be in charge of making plans and taking decisions which have immediate effect and one would be directly responsible for the success or failure of ones actions. I agree broadly with him on social issues but diverge slightly on foreign policy and economic issues.

Martyr

..but he has not much executive experience.

do you mean military experience?
if Obama was a veteran, would he then have executive experience?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

Martyr wrote: »

do you mean military experience?

Not necessarily but yes officers and non-com officers make executive decisions. Their decisions carry particular weight in combat as it can literally mean the difference between life and death. But many positions in civilian life require executive decision making namely management. Generally the higher up in position the greater impact their decisions make and the more experienced they would be.

Martyr wrote: »

if Obama was a veteran, would he then have executive experience?

Yes if he was an officer.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

False.

He co-sponsored an amendment to the Defence Authorization Act with Republican Senator Kit Bond adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges.

http://bond.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=5C1EBFEB-1321-0E36-BA7D-04630AEFAD31

He introduced legislation with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/071220-obama_schiff_pr/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

BenjAii wrote: »

but she does believe that ....

link or it didnt happen.

Hobbes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He has done more then that. Even just recently on an Energy bill that the Republicans put through.

Graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958

He was nearly bottom of his class. In fact he wouldn't of even gotten into the Academy if it wasn't for his dad being an admiral.

Being a POW does not make you qualified to be a president.

Also I don't know where you get that McCain opposed the Iraq war, because all he has done is support it. He also supports Bushes Tax Cuts and wants to make them permanent.

I mean if you pick McCain a year or so before he started running you would have a point, but now he is just like Bush.

Hobbes

Overheal wrote: »

link or it didnt happen.

Oh it happened alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EgwoWVNoic

If you google you will find the full video and see that it is in context.

Hobbes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you just cut and pasting from some site or actually researching what you post?

I haven't looked at everything you have mentioned but you are wrong on that. This gives a good breakdown of why it is wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802260009

axer

Hobbes wrote: »

He was nearly bottom of his class. In fact he wouldn't of even gotten into the Academy if it wasn't for his dad being an admiral.

He was also a bad pilot crashing 4 times during training and then once in combat (one has to wonder was he taken down in combat because he was a bad pilot).

For 20 hours over enemy territory he got a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals. About a medal and a half for every hour for each hour spent in combat.

Read more here on the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain website who are sick of the media bias of John McCain being made out to be a war hero when he was far from it.

I don't think McCain's terrible military record gives him any experience necessary for president unless the president needs experience crashing airplanes.

is_that_so

That is one truly awful website but at least it corroborates the main part of the McCain tale in that he got locked up for five years. Vietnam haunts America and any story that has a hero, even if that story is not 100% and does not include obviously heinous crimes make them feel better. Any Vietnam stories beyond widely reported atrocities are subject to human recall and often couched in emotive language and blame attribution.

Kerry used Vietnam in 2004 and got pulverised by the Swift Boats. That was a low in US politics, in my view and if the Dems feel that they need to the same then Obama stands for nothing he claims to represent.

Hobbes

axer wrote: »

Read more here on the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain website.

omg.. why isn't this being reported? 20 hours combat? Medal + half per hour.

John McCain wrote:

When I saw it, I said to the guard, "O.K., get the officer." An officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as "The Bug." He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."

I can see why he endorses torture now.

axer

is_that_so wrote: »

Kerry used Vietnam in 2004 and got pulverised by the Swift Boats. That was a low in US politics, in my view and if the Dems feel that they need to the same then Obama stands for nothing he claims to represent.

That is usually the case with Republicans (at least in recent years) it seems. The McCain camp have no problems lowering themselves to whatever it takes whereas Obama isn't doing that. Some of the recent McCain adverts are just despicable and McCain has the audacity to blame obama for that - what a joke.

is_that_so

Interesting piece on the problems faced by the Dem ticket and the threat of the new kid on the block aka Sarah Palin, who once upon a time was Obama. Of particular interest is the quote from his own article a year and a half ago.

http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2008/09/10/the_gop_resurrection?page=full&comments=true