FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

Hobbes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So it is OK to disclosure military secrets as long as US Military are not put in harms way?

McCain obviously votes with Bush when he believes that Bush is correct.

95% of the time.

But he has also stood up and voted against Bush many times.

5% of the time.

Your position seems to be the Left party line that Bush is always wrong,

Hmm, you mean Bush has done a good job?! News to me. Do you have any good examples?

Of course voting for McCain because he is like Bush is certainly a valid reason to vote for him. Because he isn't like bush isn't.

And, by the way, your own favoured candidate has voted the Democratic party line 97% of the time during his political career.

Well what I found was 100%, but then his party hasn't turned the USA into a clusterfuk.

Hobbes

BenjAii wrote: »

refusing to take responsibility for the fact it is their party who is in power.

Actually I saw one who did. Newt Gringrinch of all people. On the daily show he said his party was the best party to clean up the mess his party created.

is_that_so

Seanies32 wrote: »

Good post there, the campaign seems to have turned into a reactionary rather than pro active election. EG. Biden being picked to address Obamas perceived foreign policy inexperience and Palin to seize on disaffected Hilary voters.

The Republicans have brought questions on foreign policy and Palin on themselves. They made it a massive campaign issue so they should have seen this one coming.

Palin seemed an inspired choice at first but the more we hear about her the more I wonder, this thread being a perfect example. Obama gets accused of having little experience, then Palin gets selected!
I have seen no defending or advocating of Palin here, just whataboutery, which says alot!
The Iraq and Ireland lies remind me of Hilarys gaff over Iraq.

Good thread bye the way, I've learned McCain isn't as experienced as I had thought as 27 years was in the military. Obviously as there's a 25 year gap he will be more experienced than Obama.

The weakness of the McCain/Palin ticket seems to be economics. He has admitted it's not his forte and she seems to have done a decent job taking money from Washington and the Oil Companies.

Anyway after 8 years of Bush, a little socialism may not be a bad idea to counter balance that!

PS. Should we not be comparing her to Biden?

I think what you really have overall are four pretty ordinary candidates pretending to be a lot better than they are. Added to this mix is the self-righteousness and monopoly of truth of both sides, as in some of the arguments here and the shadow of one man, GW Bush.

Without the dismal 8 years of Bush who knows who if any of these candidates would currently be campaigning for the Presidency.

Where you stand on this as far as I can see comes down to how the candidate suits your politics or is not Bush, not necessarily whether they'd be any good or not. Many arguments can be made to justify why either one is better than the other.
I think it can be built any way you want , Obama's "fantastic" policies and visions. McCain's "military" experience, Palin's madness and/or lies and Biden's , em invisibility. Ultimately people side with the one they like.

The Dems are trying to present themselves as "not" the GOP and offering all manner of things which would improve people's lives whereas the GOP seem to be hell-bent on winning an election that will then allow them to implement policies. At the moment they appear to be a lot better at it.

Considering the worsening finacical problems in the US and the now even-more extended US debt how many of these policies will see the light of day. For now all they are are promises.

McCain offers to bring the country together. That's part of his pitch. Easier to achieve and in my view more necessary than some of the lofty ideals that Obama has. Even the debate here on the election demonstrates how poorly people view the "other" side.

As McMillan commented "It's events dear boy, events" that affect things and judging by the continuing financial problems there are likely to be more of those events. Whoever wins is likely to have to deal with that.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He did not pick Palin based upon her qualifications to be VP or succeed him as president, but rather to simply cause a splash and win the election. This truly reflects on the rationale' of McCain's decision making (now, and in the future).

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Anyone running for the first office in the US is putting himself first! Does anyone out there (not yet blinded by the need to win at any cost) see the irony in this statement that is repeated over and over again? What a craic!

The only thing that four years of torture will qualify McCain for is post traumatic syndrome disorder.

donegalfella wrote:

Personally, I think Clinton-Obama would have worked best for the Dems

I agree. Palin could not win by gender if Hilliary was in play. Whether the US realises better leadership if the Dems win is another question.:rolleyes:

Whomever wins, we in Ireland lose, because neither of the platforms exhibit the competence needed.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The possessive plural of party is parties'; parties are also groupings of politicians; and it's uncool to attack someone's grammar and spelling instead of their arguments.

eamonnm79

I agree with that 100%.

I openly admit to being a poor speller.

Unless you cannot understand what someone is trying to say then its just petty to question their spelling and shows a lack of belief in your own arguement.
"Play the ball, not the man (person)"

FatherTed

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats funny, you have quite the selective memory. That was then, this is now. Yes back in 2000, McCain did have opposing views to Bush but the smear campaign in South Carolina by Karl Rove put an end to his bid. Funny now that Rove is appalled at McCain's tactics these days.

You could say back then that McCain was different to Bush more like the Anti-Bush. But since then, McCain has put his quest to be president over his beliefs back then and has become McBush. Now as I said in another thread, I have no problem in politicians changing their views, just as long as he admit them e.g. he originally wanted to repeal the Bush tax cuts but now wants them kept. So whats that? The Bush policies. I don't see how hard it is for people to understand this.

Pocono Joe

If there is to be an October surprise, I think it will be an all-out onslaught by the Republicans regarding the media's complete and utter lack of objectivity in this election process.

We will hear that Democrat operatives send a small army to dig up any dirt they possibly can on Governor Palin, which the media willingly reports with gleeful orgasmic expressiveness. Yet this same media refuses to examine and report anything possibly negavite about Obama, like troublesome holes in Obama's life, that involve a disturbing aspect that should be examined and relayed to the American People of the man who would be our President.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/obamas_missing_years.html

Also, the American people will have drilled into their physique that the media now feels that our American government has become an elite occupation. One that the American people's capacity for self-government has become extinct. And the Republicans will stress that if "uncertified" citizens are unfit for the highest offices, then why do we trust those same citizens to select our highest officers through free elections?

And when we go to the polls on November 4th, we will know McCain and Palin. And realize there is just too much unknown about Obama to put our trust in for President, brought about by a biased media which has been viewed as elitist and non-objective for many years now. Funny how the self-proclaimed high thinkers in the media just don't get it.

Otacon

Pocono Joe wrote: »

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

You harp on about objectivity and then you put forward that link? Because they can't (or haven't bothered) to find any of Obama's classmates, they call into question what he might have done during that time (with no real sources)? Nice.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And when we go to the polls on November 4th, we will know ...Palin.

Except the results and findings of Troopergate?

Pocono Joe

Otacon wrote: »

Except the results and findings of Troopergate?

Or anything meaningful that Obama has done to earn him the Presidency... except for some good electioneering.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

We will hear that Democrat operatives send a small army to dig up any dirt they possibly can on Governor Palin,

Even factcheck.org has said the "airdrop" claim by the McCain camp is total BS.

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

*shudder* seriously you need to pick a better story then that. I mean they try to mention Pakistani, Obama, Heroin within the same paragraph.

Another point is "Did he deal drugs?" then links to a story which makes no mention what so ever of the claim.

Same story tries to claim that Obama lied to get a lease, when in fact the quoted story says the reverse.

Sorry but that story is total tosh. Please for the love of god actually research what you are reading or at the very least read the sources it mentions.

we will know McCain and Palin. And realize there is just too much unknown about Obama to put our trust in for President,

Hmm, Which of those has released their full medical records? Or their full tax records of them and spouse?

Define unknowns.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

axer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Does he not believe that they should be at a certain level rather than afraid to use the term "raise taxes". At least Obama is not afraid to look after the more economically vunerable in the USA rather than the wealthy.

sink

Hobbes wrote: »

Define unknowns.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rusmfeld

Hobbes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain. wrote:

Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant.

Incidentally you can read that quote directly from the book at Amazon. Giving military information to the enemy I believe is a no-no.

U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain. wrote:

O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html?PageNr=2

He even mentions later in that story that what he did was wrong.

In 2007. Why don't you try to do better than except one year from a 27-year political career?

Well he did 100% this year. Is that better?

axer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would his intended target not have been a military secret?

Hobbes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your the one who seems to think it is an issue. You tell me. Those who were interviewed during that time spoke highly of Obama, or refused to talk to press because "Even talking to a Muslim makes Obama a muslim to the Republican party" (sic).

In fact I see lame half ass attempts to claim Obama is a drug fiend based on the outcome of others he knew around that time.

Pocono Joe

Hobbes wrote: »

Please for the love of god actually research what you are reading or at the very least read the sources it mentions.

Now that's funny! Especially from the ones that agonized over the Palin belly bump stories, originating from the daily dung spun at the Daily Kos.

What some here fail or refuse to recognize is the hypocrisy of the media.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Interesting that you are for liberalisation of all markets but the one example where it turned to disaster you try to pawn off to the left.

Overheal

Hobbes wrote: »

So it is OK to disclosure military secrets as long as US Military are not put in harms way?

Hobbes without any evidence to the contrary, McCain did not disclose Military Secrets. The point is moot.

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." -John McCain

It's not like he gave the Cylons the access codes to the defense mainframe. He could have done a lot worse, like telling them the condition of his carrier; the number and configuration of planes; the patrol routes; the fleet locations; etc.

Hmm, you mean Bush has done a good job?! News to me. Do you have any good examples?

Actually as a strong Bush hater: I do. In the Wake of 9/11, The United States has not since been attacked. The monkey really doesn't get enough credit for that. But here's a quicklist I google'd: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163304/posts Cant agree with everything there but theres a few good things in there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

axer

Overheal wrote: »

Hobbes without any evidence to the contrary, McCain did not disclose Military Secrets. The point is moot.

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." -John McCain

It's not like he gave the Cylons the access codes to the defense mainframe. He could have done a lot worse, like telling them the condition of his carrier; the number and configuration of planes; the patrol routes; the fleet locations; etc.



Actually as a strong Bush hater: I do. In the Wake of 9/11, The United States has not since been attacked. The monkey really doesn't get enough credit for that. But here's a quicklist I google'd: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163304/posts Cant agree with everything there but theres a few good things in there.

Like? I started reading it and all I got was "ban on abortion" "ban on someone's attempts to be anti-abortian".

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You must be aware that the bill was bi-partisan and was introduced by two republican senators Gramm and Leach. So you can't lump all the blame on the democrats or Clinton. I'm accusing you of double standards. You are for maximum market liberalisation but when it turns bad you conveniently blame the democrats when all sides got it wrong.

The public exchequer bailing out financial institutions is a different thing entirely and let me remind you is being orchestrated by George Bush and the republicans.

etit: btw I agree with McCain that the government shouldn't be bailing out the banks

Overheal

axer wrote: »

Like? I started reading it and all I got was "ban on abortion" "ban on someone's attempts to be anti-abortian".

yeh I skipped that section myself.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I read about that act somewhere and if I recall correctly it is simply precluding banks from automatically discriminating based on address. They can still decline the loan if the applicants don't meet the financial requirements. It only allowed people from poor neighbourhoods to get a foot in the door as they were not even considered before they had been properly vetted.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't blame George Bush for everything, but I'm certainly not going to shield him from blame like you seem to be doing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Should not.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The phrase you quoted and (incorrectly) corrected was "their parties' policies".

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I was clearly responding to the poster's arguments. I also happened to note his consistent confusion of the plural "parties" with the possessive singular "party's."

You tried to be a grammar smartass, and it backfired.

However, I'm sure there's an obscure forum rule somewhere that now merits an "infraction" of some kind....

Yes, you've made it clear that you don't think the rules should apply to you. They do. Back on topic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I stand corrected; I had managed to interpret, incorrectly, that "them" referred to members of different parties.

How, exactly? I was and am correct in stating that the singular possessive (party's) rather than the plural (parties) should have been used in this case. At no stage did the original poster of this comment use the plural possessive (parties') as you suggest.

You did, however, say that "parties are things you have at Christmas", which was a smartass remark and uncalled-for, as was the original grammar correction.

This isn't getting any closer to on-topic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Interesting I must read more into it. How do you equate this with you're economic ideology whereby anyone can get a loan in order to start up a business and it's not just restricted to the already well off?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And it is a good point, but when you made it, it didn't come across as such. It sounded more like you were blaming Clinton for everything.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Now that you accept that liberalisation of the financial services sector was in part responsible for the current economic crises would you call for more government intervention trough reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act or something similar?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not sure of your logic. What your basically saying is that the US stuck it's hand in the fire and got burned, but don't worry when it jumps all the way in it'll be ok. Why? Because it just will!

Hobbes

Overheal wrote: »

Hobbes without any evidence to the contrary, McCain did not disclose Military Secrets. The point is moot.

Revealing troop plans to the enemy is giving secrets away. I am sure you will continue to argue this, so I can only assume that you have no issue with McCain giving this information to the Viet Cong.

You were the one making the claim that being POW makes you presidential but even if it did there were at least two times McCain helped the Viet Cong according to his written record.

Not very presidential.

The United States has not since been attacked.

Since 9/11 there has been 15 Terrorist attacks against America. That isn't counting fighting Iraq/Afghanistan and are only attributed to AQ.

But here's a quicklist I google'd: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163304/posts Cant agree with everything there but theres a few good things in there.

See thats your problem with research. You take the first link you find and then post it as gospel. To add to that you say you can't agree with everything there but then don't even point out what you do agree with?

I would of thought someone who believed Bush did a good job would be able to explain exactly how.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They had the opportunity to self regulate after the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and they failed miserably. What makes you think they are going to be any better at it in the future?

CPT. SURF

Sand wrote: »

I think the issue is that they are very much an urban based party, and they simply cant help themselves when it comes to their attitudes to rural areas. Its not a strictly US thing, go to any country and theres an urban/rural divide. It maybe seems stronger in the US due to the media saturation/cultural export there [ look at us, Irish people discussing the US elections...and more than likely mirrored by many people across the entire world...] but when you read some of the comments and blogs of both sides, its a fairly bitter divide at some points. .

Haha you are totally wrong dude!! Ha

The Democratic party has traditionally had great success with poor rural voters in the South. The Republican party garnering much of its support from wealthy business urban dwellers.

When the Republicans started to really manipulate the weak-minded poor religious people of the South they had them. They aint gonna vote against God now are they?

Hobbes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It can? Can you post us to where you got that gem from?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well the act was proposed by, and voted for, by a Republican controlled Congress. And lest you think that Obama forgets that Clinton signed off on it - think again.