PDA

View Full Version : Like a middle schooler who didn't do her homework..


JSUCamel
09-11-2008, 10:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

Wow.

...I don't think she knows what she's talking about.

Obama doesn't even need to do anything. The only thing that needs to happen to seal the doom of McCain-Palin is for journalists to keep asking questions.

Terez
09-11-2008, 10:59 PM
That's the first time I've been able to bring myself to actually watch her, lol (been keeping up through the print stuff). I don't think I'll do it again unless I'm forced to...

Birgitte
09-12-2008, 12:00 AM
hehehe... Nicely played, Charlie. Though you should know better than to try and get a yes or no from a politician.

GonzoTheGreat
09-12-2008, 03:36 AM
Just remember: she may be the one in control of the Big Red Button in March next year. Does she really need knowledge when she has that much power at her disposal?

Ozymandias
09-12-2008, 04:15 AM
Lol was it just me or did she contradict herself within the space of 2 responses?

She SOUNDS like a soccer-mom. A vague opinion that sounds uninformed, delivered with all the fervor and belief of someone speaking the word of God.

Obviously trying to get a yes or no is a futile effort, but I would have expected more than the drivel that Palin spouted. She didn't even give a response like "we're gonna work with Pakistan so the situation never arises where we need to go across without their permission."

It will be a political tragedy if she wins. Bush, for all his bumbling incompetence and cronyism, at least was qualified. I never thought I'd be defending the guy, but he had strongly held opinions, and sometimes we judged them a little to early. Iraq being one. Palin is an Alaskan mayor, which means she was the head of a tiny community which can't even support itself, who seems totally lost in debate and conversation at a national level.

GonzoTheGreat
09-12-2008, 04:51 AM
Bush, for all his bumbling incompetence and cronyism, at least was qualified.Warned you about that, I did.

Once upon a time, a couple of years (months) ago, people were saying that Bush was the worst possible president. I reminded them that the same had been said of Dan Quayle (who didn't get the job), and that there was no reason to assume that no one with a higher level of incompetence would ever get the job.

There's a bright side to it, of course: if we live long enough, we may very well reminiscence back to the good old days of president Palin, who at least had some abilities needed for the job.
Do not assume she's the worst, because then you will be disappointed.

irerancincpkc
09-12-2008, 06:00 AM
Now that is awesome. :D I'm betting she doesn't get the chance to do too many interviews. :D

I really, really can't wait for the VP debate. Biden is going to destroy her.

Hopper
09-12-2008, 07:19 AM
Now that is awesome. :D I'm betting she doesn't get the chance to do too many interviews. :D

I really, really can't wait for the VP debate. Biden is going to destroy her.

I disagree. Biden is going to give her every opportunity to destroy herself though.

irerancincpkc
09-12-2008, 07:23 AM
I disagree. Biden is going to give her every opportunity to destroy herself though.
I'm sure he will, but Biden is Biden, and if he gets going...

tanaww
09-12-2008, 07:55 AM
Now that is awesome. :D I'm betting she doesn't get the chance to do too many interviews. :D

I really, really can't wait for the VP debate. Biden is going to destroy her.

Pity my VP candidate wasn't invited. That really would have been fun to watch.

Bryan Blaire
09-12-2008, 07:59 AM
Biden will likely eat Palin alive in a debate. Same would go for a Biden-Obama debate (how the ticket got reversed is beyond me).

Biden's biggest issue will be refraining from sounding too superior and elitist during the debate, and appearing to talk down to Palin, the questioner, and possibly the American people, any of which will likely be looked upon poorly by half or more of the US population.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-12-2008, 08:16 AM
Yeah, Biden beating up on a chick can't make his ticket look good.

Ivhon
09-12-2008, 08:19 AM
Yeah, Biden beating up on a chick can't make his ticket look good.

I don't understand this insistence that Palin be treated with kid gloves while at the same time she rabidly attacks the other ticket. Yes, I know impressions are impressions, but what does it say if she is "tough, scrappy and relentless" if she goes after Biden or Obama with everything she and her speechwriters can muster, but they are "beating up on a chick" if they do the same?

EDIT: The notion that women need to be treated like fragile flowers is horrendously outdated. If a woman is going to come on the same field as a man, she should not expect to be treated chivalrously. That goes for sports, politics, business or anything else. ESPECIALLY considering that men have NO inherent advantages when it comes to using words or their brains. "Don't hit a woman" might be fine for literally throwing a punch - but for figuratively throwing a punch it just doesnt hold water, cause she can hit back just as hard if not harder.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-12-2008, 08:28 AM
Um, dude, that was tongue in cheek. You know me, when have I EVER said women were fragile flowers?

Bryan Blaire
09-12-2008, 08:29 AM
Ivhon, the media kept saying the same thing about "beating up on a black man".

Why is it racist to debate or attack Obama, but sexism isn't even an issue when it comes to Palin?

irerancincpkc
09-12-2008, 08:33 AM
Ivhon, the media kept saying the same thing about "beating up on a black man".

Why is it racist to debate or attack Obama, but sexism isn't even an issue when it comes to Palin?
In case you haven't noticed, McCain and the Republican party has been smearing Obama pretty much nonstop, and I don't see the media saying it's because Obama is black.

Ivhon
09-12-2008, 08:37 AM
Um, dude, that was tongue in cheek. You know me, when have I EVER said women were fragile flowers?

Wasn't directed at you...although the tongue in cheek comment triggered a thought from yesterday when listening to the McCain campaigns "demand[s] that Sarah Palin be treated with respect and...(forgot the other word, may have been dignity...something like that)." The media should not feel constrained to treat anyone with dignity and respect. They havent done so for either Obama or McCain. Why should Palin get special consideration? Because she is inexperienced?

Ivhon
09-12-2008, 08:42 AM
Ivhon, the media kept saying the same thing about "beating up on a black man".

Why is it racist to debate or attack Obama, but sexism isn't even an issue when it comes to Palin?


Im seeing very few accusations of racism despite the non-stop smears from the McCain camp that have little to no basis in reality (as spammer said).

From a more philosophical standpoint, attack the candidate on their stances, not their race or gender. On that point I agree with you completely.

Quite honestly, Im actually glad to say that I dont see EITHER side right now attacking either race or gender (I DO expect some subtle and not so subtle reminders closer to November from the Republicans, though).

What I DO see is the Republicans - far more than the Dems - hiding behind gender and military service when attacked on the ISSUES. And a bunch of made up smears that do not stand up to fact-checking in the least. But thats typical Republican politics.

Bryan Blaire
09-12-2008, 08:50 AM
Just like you don't see the media saying that the attacks on Palin are because she's a woman.

They did start out by saying things like that, and it depends on who you define as the media. There was a big to-do about how Obama was African-American, etc, and the Democratic pundit blogs were screaming about how dishonorable and racist it was to be attacking Obama and "Black Liberation Theology", regardless of how divisive something with a title like "Black Liberation Theology" really is.

I'm not talking about the media now, Spammer, I'm talking about supporters, and I likely should have clarified that.

Ivhon has already shown that both he and Obama have "preemptively struck" the race issue with comments like "Oh, and he's black" and saying that they'll try to use that against him, when I haven't seen any Republican supporters saying much of anything about that. So the man is black, so what? I thought we were a colorless society, I thought that meant that your color wasn't important. Therefore the concept of a "first" should be meaningless.

The fun fact: The Democratic party, pundits, and supporters LOVE divisive and identity politics, and HATE that it is now being used against them. It's not much fun to be labeled a racist or sexist, etc, when that had nothing to do with why you don't like someone. The shoe is never as much fun when it is on YOUR foot, but get used to it. Identity politics and divisive grouping politics were introduced into the American political spectrum by Southern Democrats and they likely will continue to be used until the more enlightened party just stops using them or discussing the importance of race, creed, sex, religion, etc, at all. Sadly, the Democrats haven't proved themselves any more enlightened in that respect, even though they claim to be.

Ivhon
09-12-2008, 09:01 AM
Just like you don't see the media saying that the attacks on Palin are because she's a woman.

They did start out by saying things like that, and it depends on who you define as the media. There was a big to-do about how Obama was African-American, etc, and the Democratic pundit blogs were screaming about how dishonorable and racist it was to be attacking Obama and "Black Liberation Theology", regardless of how divisive something with a title like "Black Liberation Theology" really is.

I'm not talking about the media now, Spammer, I'm talking about supporters, and I likely should have clarified that.

Ivhon has already shown that both he and Obama have "preemptively struck" the race issue with comments like "Oh, and he's black" and saying that they'll try to use that against him, when I haven't seen any Republican supporters saying much of anything about that. So the man is black, so what? I thought we were a colorless society, I thought that meant that your color wasn't important. Therefore the concept of a "first" should be meaningless.

The fun fact: The Democratic party, pundits, and supporters LOVE divisive and identity politics, and HATE that it is now being used against them. It's not much fun to be labeled a racist or sexist, etc, when that had nothing to do with why you don't like someone. The shoe is never as much fun when it is on YOUR foot, but get used to it. Identity politics and divisive grouping politics were introduced into the American political spectrum by Southern Democrats and they likely will continue to be used until the more enlightened party just stops using them or discussing the importance of race, creed, sex, religion, etc, at all. Sadly, the Democrats haven't proved themselves any more enlightened in that respect, even though they claim to be.


I just finished saying that I havent seen either party attack on race or gender grounds yet - or at least since the attempts to portray Obama as a muslim extremist died down. I DO expect it closer to the election, but thats just because Ive seen that before. I hope Im wrong. Not sure why you are bringing my name into it.

I guess we see things very differently on the divisive politics. I have seen nothing but lies, smears and wedge issues from the Republicans for the last 9 years. Much much less from the Democrats and usually in response to what the Republicans are already doing. Trying to stay on the high road cost the Dems the last election, might cost them this one for waiting too long to fight back against the smears. 2000, of course, was just plain cheating.

I can't wait for an election to be run on popular vote with electronic voting machines that leave a paper trail. But I doubt that will ever happen.

EDIT: I think you might be making a mistake, Bry, in spending too much time on what the supporters of either candidate are saying. With millions of supporters each, there are gonna be some nutjobs on both sides. Now, thats not a blanket statement. When those supporters have the ability to reach a mass-audience, then you might have to respond. But attacking a campaign because a couple of random bloggers that only dirtcheckers are looking for are making absurd claims should not be given a lot of attention.

I see a lot of "black and white" responses here, which I find very interesting. Not in the racial sense :D but in the sense of both parties have corrupt members and nutjob supporters, therefore they are equally bad. With little attention to the relative amounts of corruption and nutjobs.

irerancincpkc
09-12-2008, 09:03 AM
I'm not talking about the media now, Spammer, I'm talking about supporters, and I likely should have clarified that.

Some supporters, who can't debate on the issues will bring up that Obama is black, same as the supporters who will bring up that Palin is a woman.

Though I do hold that the GOP smear machine is going to smear Obama because he is black, and they won't be held accountable for it, while if Obama/Biden were ever to bring up Palin's woman-ness, the Republicans would never shut up about it.

JSUCamel
09-12-2008, 09:16 AM
I've personally heard from a variety of people who say they won't vote for Barack Obama because he's black (including my mother), and others (including my father) who won't vote for McCain because Palin's a woman.

I personally agree more with Obama's stances than with McCain's stances. I don't have a problem with Palin being a woman, with Obama being black, with McCain being old. I have a problem with Palin's super pro-life, pro-guns stances, with McCain's tax plan, with his pro-military plan.

I also disagree with a lot of Obama's stances. I believe I touched on some of those earlier. But I agree with 7 out of 10 of Obama's stances and I only agree with maybe 4 out of 10 of McCain's.

I wish there were more viable options. Might still vote Libertarian, as I agree about 8/10 of their stances.

Bryan Blaire
09-12-2008, 09:19 AM
If more people were to take the chance and actually vote Libertarian, I think we'd have a much better country, Camel.

Sorry, Ivhon, the relative amounts of corruption and nutjobs are about equal for both parties, and it is kinda foolish to think that one side is better than the other in that respect.

Ivhon
09-12-2008, 09:27 AM
If more people were to take the chance and actually vote Libertarian, I think we'd have a much better country, Camel.

Sorry, Ivhon, the relative amounts of corruption and nutjobs are about equal for both parties, and it is kinda foolish to think that one side is better than the other in that respect.


Well, Im not going to get into a count up all the high-profile examples of nutjobs and corrupt assholes in each party over the last 10 years because going tit for tat on that would take forever and Im too lazy. However, you cannot convince me that there are more on the Republican side - if only because of the fact that they have held more power (a point I have consistently tried to bring up). I have no doubts that if the Democrats get and hold the balance of power for a decade then they will be just as bad - if differently manifested. Especially after all the precedents this administration has set on what abuses of power can be gotten away with. At such time as that happens, I will have no problems voting Republican if for no other reason than to root out the corruption on the left for a few years.

Cary Sedai
09-12-2008, 11:28 AM
Ugh. The prospect of McCain/Palin winning are frightning to say the very least. The deer in the headlights look, mixed with her obvious lack of knowledge, was hopefully noticeable to anyone who saw this.

Too bad Charlie couldn't knock her off her scripted answers. If she had just made one comment with her own words... Well hopefully Biden will be able to do just that.

"hell-bent" I think we are gonna hear that a lot from her. She said it twice that I counted.

irerancincpkc
09-12-2008, 11:58 AM
"hell-bent" I think we are gonna hear that a lot from her. She said it twice that I counted.
I believe it is a way to try and sound tough. I find that rather amusing. :D

Ivhon
09-12-2008, 12:13 PM
So after her resounding success with her first interview, the McCain campaign is taking the bold step of showcasing Sarah Palin's formidable interviewing skills on....


Hannity and Colmes.

irerancincpkc
09-12-2008, 12:23 PM
So after her resounding success with her first interview, the McCain campaign is taking the bold step of showcasing Sarah Palin's formidable interviewing skills on....


Hannity and Colmes.
~snort~

Davian93
09-12-2008, 04:48 PM
God she's a moron.

Maybe they could just put peanut butter on her lips and have someone else talk for her like Mr. Ed.

tworiverswoman
09-12-2008, 05:33 PM
Palin is an Alaskan mayor, which means she was the head of a tiny community which can't even support itself.Try to keep up, Ozy -- she's a sitting governor, has been since 2006...

Seeker
09-13-2008, 04:59 PM
Well, that video was a lovely bit of hot air, empty words and uber-conservative demagoguery. Thanks a lot, Miss Palin, for reminding me why I'm afraid of you.

I believe what President Bush has tried to do is rid the world of Islamic extremism.

Extremism = bad 99% of the time.
It's a scary thought to me, reducing the war on terror to a war on Islamic Extemism: taking, what is essentially, a broad range of very diverse enemies, and zeroing in on one particular enemy.

Since the Bush Doctrine of 2002 was essentially a prelude to Iraq, Palin's drawing improper connections either accidentally or purposefully. Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic extremism. Hussein - while a dictator - ran a primarily secular totalitarian government. He's been noted to decry many of the more theological Muslim philosophies.

So, linking the Bush doctrine - which was about Iraq - to Muslim extremism is inaccurate. It proves she either isn't paying attention or she's trying to put a spin on things.

I think it's easy to associate terrorism with Islamic radicalism because it was radical Muslims who instigated 9/11, but in the last eight years, we've seen a myriad of different forms of extremism.

The Taliban
The Darfur Crisis.
The North Korean fascist state/Kim Jeung Ille.
Human rights issues in China.
Alqueda.
The Insurgency in Iraq. The list goes on.

While equally deplorable, not all of these problems involve Muslims.

In order to stop Islamic Extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we MUST NOT blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target?

No, that's not extreme at all.
I'm with her on subduing people who would take innocent lives to prove a point, don't get me wrong.

But, notice how she doesn't address other kinds of extremism. Saddam Hussein was a secular extremist. What about Secular Extremists or Christian Extremists or Israeli Extemists or god knows what else is available, we seem to be in no short supply of psychopaths.

I get that the specifics of the question - should we cross the Pakistan border - are in relation to the pursuit of a specific kind of extremists, the Islamic one, but by failing to mention the other kinds of extremism, she's made the implication that she's fixated on the Islamic terrorists; and she's already drawn an incorrect inference about them. (See above).

Moreover, her "we have to do whatever it takes," talk without any concrete specification of what she means by that, has that sly "I shouldn't have to bow to oversight," undertone, coupled with a dash of, "you should all be scared enough to let me get away with it."

Remember, what separates us from the extremists is that we know how to exercise restraint.

Oh yeah, and way to avoid the question.
Kudos, Governor. Kudos.

Davian93
09-13-2008, 08:52 PM
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8619/1180318496871dz9.jpg

FAIL!!!