2008 VP Debate Thread Part 2

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: seemingly random
:laugh:

It's 99% unimportant except in the extremely rare case where it's 100% important.

It's not 1% - 10% of presidents are assassinated in office, more are disabled.

Funny you bring that up. Palin, at least, wouldn't lead us into another Vietnam the way Lyndon Johnson did after Kennedy was shot.

If she keeps the same cabinet as John McCain she may lead us into Iran, though. 😛

"If you don't want to invade Iran, then you are waving the white flag of surrender!!! That's not what our hard working troops need to hear right now!!!! I know because I'm an outsider who knows what Joe Six Pack thinks!!! I talk to him every day!!!! Seriously, his name is Joe Six Pack. He's the guy who works down at the gun shop. He's just an average guy. With broad shoulders. Thick, dark hair. Clear blue eyes. And so tall. Mmmm...."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: seemingly random
:laugh:

It's 99% unimportant except in the extremely rare case where it's 100% important.

It's not 1% - 10% of presidents are assassinated in office, more are disabled.

Funny you bring that up. Palin, at least, wouldn't lead us into another Vietnam the way Lyndon Johnson did after Kennedy was shot.

That's idiotic. The Republicans were at least as in favor of Vietnam as LBJ. It was his inability to resist right-wing pressure as JFK had, with great effort, that was a major factor.

Palin is Bush, and she would do the same thing on the next Vietnam that he did on Iraq. It's not about them, it's about how they serve the powerful interests behind them.

Both parties were gung ho on Vietnam when it started, but the democrats were the party to recognize the mistake and admit it and work to reverse it.

The Republicans, as they got power - with some evidence they treasonously sabotaged the LBJ peace talks in 1968 to help win the presidency - were the party who lied about a 'secret plan to end the war' and talked peace while secretly expanding the war, delaying its end for years, with Machiavellian game-playing about a 'plausible deniability time period' allowing them to blame the fall of South Vietnam on the Vietnamese people and deny they lost, and worried about slogans like 'Peace with Honor'.

Vietnam was a big blot against the democrats - but an exception to their long history of avoiding wrong wars. The Republicans' long history is of all kinds of wrong wars.

One of the reasons leaders start unnecessary wars is when they are weak, because war builds support for them. Who would be weaker than Palin, in need of such support?

It worked great for Margaret Thatcher who was broadly seen as a disaster who would be voted out, until the Falkland Islands came along - a war, interestingly enough, started by the Argentian generals ruling the country because of *their* political weakness, as the public was pushing to overthrow them. That, too worked great for them in the short term, while the war was going on the public ralled for them.

Of all the candidates, Palin is the *most* likely to get us into the next Vietnam, just as Bush was malleable on Iraq and bought in 'whole hog' to the point of lying us into war.

It's tragic - the injustice of millions of Vietnamese killed had little effect on our policy which was more worried about 'winning the war'.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Because of the way she is spinning it. She is trying to sell to us that because she is an "outsider" that the chances of things changing in Washington increased by a ton. That's the bullshit.

LOL...so you perceive some nuance of political spin during an election campaign...please spare me your "outrage". :roll:

Are you honestly sitting their behind your computer writing me a response believing that these limited words are the only reason I feel that way? You believe I have no historical evidence about Palin which supports that extremely generalized statement? Give me break! We have been discussing this crazy power hungry woman from Alaska for over a month now. I didn't feel the need to rehash all of that shit just so I can provide you with a book which you call a "post". You either already know why I said what I said and disagree with me or you have been asleep for over a month and assume that the debate last night was my first taste of Sarah Palin. Either way, your response is completely out in left field.

Wrong on both counts. How about this: I asked you an honest question to get an understanding of where you're coming from. And now I know...so sorry to disturb you. Peace.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Because of the way she is spinning it. She is trying to sell to us that because she is an "outsider" that the chances of things changing in Washington increased by a ton. That's the bullshit.

LOL...so you perceive some nuance of political spin during an election campaign...please spare me your "outrage". :roll:

Are you honestly sitting their behind your computer writing me a response believing that these limited words are the only reason I feel that way? You believe I have no historical evidence about Palin which supports that extremely generalized statement? Give me break! We have been discussing this crazy power hungry woman from Alaska for over a month now. I didn't feel the need to rehash all of that shit just so I can provide you with a book which you call a "post". You either already know why I said what I said and disagree with me or you have been asleep for over a month and assume that the debate last night was my first taste of Sarah Palin. Either way, your response is completely out in left field.

Wrong on both counts. How about this: I asked you an honest question to get an understanding of where you're coming from. And now I know...so sorry to disturb you. Peace.

...you would have gotten a much better response from me if you simply said something to the effect of, "Could you please elaborate." I still would not have written the book, but you probably would have gotten at least a decent bullet point list. Anyways, better luck next time to the both of us I suppose.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: yllus
I think Governor Palin made a critical mistake in not appearing more presidential and not acting in a more serious manner. Folksy charm may carry you through the short term, but who honestly would want someone who speaks like that as the chief executive of their country? .

LOL - I can see it now. Dog gone it!, there you go again Mr. Ahemenjad... Making nuk-yoo-lar stuff when you were told not too. Shame on you.

 

[her209]

I get the feeling she would step down before being sworn into the Oath of Office should the unthinkable happen.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: seemingly random
:laugh:

It's 99% unimportant except in the extremely rare case where it's 100% important.

It's not 1% - 10% of presidents are assassinated in office, more are disabled.

Funny you bring that up. Palin, at least, wouldn't lead us into another Vietnam the way Lyndon Johnson did after Kennedy was shot.

If she keeps the same cabinet as John McCain she may lead us into Iran, though. 😛

Maybe, maybe not. In any case, it'll be Joe Lieberman and the rest of that cabinet leading us into Iran, not her, so her lack of foreign policy knowledge really doesn't matter a whole lot.

 

[Red Dawn]

LOL, she was on FOX News this morning listing the papers she read and said she didn't answer the questions asked her by Couric because she was annoyed with the Liberal Media.
Wrll it sounds like she's become more of a Washington Insider, lying through her teeth.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL, she was on FOX News this morning listing the papers she read and said she didn't answer the questions asked her by Couric because she was annoyed with the Liberal Media.
Wrll it sounds like she's become more of a Washington Insider, lying through her teeth.

It's all good. She completely supports a more transparent government remember? I am sure she will change if she gets elected.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: her209
I get the feeling she would step down before being sworn into the Oath of Office should the unthinkable happen.

I strongly disagree, any more than Bush would not run because he was so unqualified.

 

[jpeyton]

Who else got a stiffy when she flirted with America?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who else got a stiffy when she flirted with America?

Damn you just me punch my monitor, damn you!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Two things (amongst many) that Palin said which really pissed me off was the comment about Biden's wife and being Heaven as well as the waving the white flag of surrender comment. The wife one was extremely distasteful

what specifically pissed you off about Palin praising Biden's wife for being a teacher for 30 years and saying there's a special place in heaven for her because of that?

I was wondering when palin became the guard at the pearly gates and gained insight into gods mind. Possibly one of the most arrogant things you can possibly comment upon.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who else got a stiffy when she flirted with America?

I don't find her attractive at all - just repulsive. Dennis Kucinich has the right idea.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: winnar111
...
Woodrow Wilson managed to 'run' the country for a year and a half after having a stroke while he was paralyzed and essentially on his deathbed. I'm sure Palin can manage in that 1%.

Maybe. But would you pick her over any other? As an example, it seems that half of the people posting here are much more qualified.

thats giving palin alot of credit imo. I would trust profjohn before palin

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: seemingly random
:laugh:

It's 99% unimportant except in the extremely rare case where it's 100% important.

It's not 1% - 10% of presidents are assassinated in office, more are disabled.

Funny you bring that up. Palin, at least, wouldn't lead us into another Vietnam the way Lyndon Johnson did after Kennedy was shot.

If she keeps the same cabinet as John McCain she may lead us into Iran, though. 😛

Maybe, maybe not. In any case, it'll be Joe Lieberman and the rest of that cabinet leading us into Iran, not her, so her lack of foreign policy knowledge really doesn't matter a whole lot.

I disagree. If she had foreign policy knowledge she might have enough backbone to tell Joe Lieberman and Friends to piss off when they tell her to attack Iran. Since she doesn't, however, it could be like Cheney and Rumsfeld all over again.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who else got a stiffy when she flirted with America?

Sure I did, but it was patronizing, too.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Balt

I disagree. If she had foreign policy knowledge she might have enough backbone to tell Joe Lieberman and Friends to piss off when they tell her to attack Iran. Since she doesn't, however, it could be like Cheney and Rumsfeld all over again.

This fails in 2 places:

1. Bush was talking about Iraq back in 1999.
2. If McCain wants to attack Iran, he'll either do it himself or appoint those people who want to attack Iran. Either way, the stage is set before Palin hypothetically came into office.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Two simple things,

1) If you were interviewing for any job and came in with that kind of folksy presentation . . .

do you really think you would be hired, for anything?

2) if you were in High School or College, took a cram course to cover the answers . . .

and told the teacher you were not going to answer the questions, and just made up
whatever you wanted to say, without answering any of the substance of the question

would you expect to get any grade higher than an 'F' or maybe even a 'ZERO' ?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Oh and the other thing which scared me a lot is that Palin said the following:

I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

I don't like this. It makes me uncomfortable in regards to how our system of checks and balances are supposed to work. It makes me believe that she is striving for more power in the Senate. Our country heavily depends on our system of checks and balances for survival and I really do not want anything to damage that which includes allowing the VP to have too much power and influence over the Senate. There is a proper balance to maintain and Palin just doesn't strike me as the type who believes in the kind of balance which I think is best for this country especially which makes statements like that combined with her history of how she prefers to use her power.

Thanks goodness Biden said, in a hugely watched television debate filled with caution, Dick Cheney is the most dangerous VP in history. That's a remarkable comment in that forum.

Aaron Burr. As vp he killed alexander hamilton and tried to break off the louisiana purchase into his own principality, and was tried and convicted of treason.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Balt

I disagree. If she had foreign policy knowledge she might have enough backbone to tell Joe Lieberman and Friends to piss off when they tell her to attack Iran. Since she doesn't, however, it could be like Cheney and Rumsfeld all over again.

This fails in 2 places:

1. Bush was talking about Iraq back in 1999.
2. If McCain wants to attack Iran, he'll either do it himself or appoint those people who want to attack Iran. Either way, the stage is set before Palin hypothetically came into office.

Sure, but what you are saying doesn't mean that someone with some foreign policy knowledge wouldn't be more likely to resist pressure from the Cabinet.

If elected I'm sure McCain and Lieberman will have enough time to do whatever they want since they both seem quite hawkish, but in the unlikely event that Palin took over do you really think she will rise above the pressure of the Cabinet or do you think she'll just be a puppet and do whatever they say?

I think she would do whatever they say, personally, because she doesn't really know enough to have her own opinion.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Balt

I disagree. If she had foreign policy knowledge she might have enough backbone to tell Joe Lieberman and Friends to piss off when they tell her to attack Iran. Since she doesn't, however, it could be like Cheney and Rumsfeld all over again.

This fails in 2 places:

1. Bush was talking about Iraq back in 1999.
2. If McCain wants to attack Iran, he'll either do it himself or appoint those people who want to attack Iran. Either way, the stage is set before Palin hypothetically came into office.

Sure, but what you are saying doesn't mean that someone with some foreign policy knowledge wouldn't be more likely to resist pressure from the Cabinet.

If elected I'm sure McCain and Lieberman will have enough time to do whatever they want since they both seem quite hawkish, but in the unlikely event that Palin took over do you really think she will rise above the pressure of the Cabinet or do you think she'll just be a puppet and do whatever they say?

I think she would do whatever they say, personally, because she doesn't really know enough to have her own opinion.

She'll do whatever they say. The entire point of a cabinet is to have a set of people who generally agree with you, not a set of people who you have to resist pressure from.

Who picks this cabinet? McCain. It's still his policy and his influence even if he's dead. Why would McCain have chosen a VP who 'resists pressure' and disagrees a significant aspect of his foreign policy?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Oh and the other thing which scared me a lot is that Palin said the following:

I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

I don't like this. It makes me uncomfortable in regards to how our system of checks and balances are supposed to work. It makes me believe that she is striving for more power in the Senate. Our country heavily depends on our system of checks and balances for survival and I really do not want anything to damage that which includes allowing the VP to have too much power and influence over the Senate. There is a proper balance to maintain and Palin just doesn't strike me as the type who believes in the kind of balance which I think is best for this country especially which makes statements like that combined with her history of how she prefers to use her power.

Thanks goodness Biden said, in a hugely watched television debate filled with caution, Dick Cheney is the most dangerous VP in history. That's a remarkable comment in that forum.

Aaron Burr. As vp he killed alexander hamilton and tried to break off the louisiana purchase into his own principality, and was tried and convicted of treason.

He's second.

 

[Red Dawn]

LOL, what debate were these fuckers watching? Nobody fellatios Republicans like Sean Hannity

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Chris
Point is, all I hear from everyone is McCain/Palin bashing (Palin more so). If Obama is so great, why aren't they talking about how great he is vs how bad the Rep ticket it?

Suppose you're driving down the highway with the love of your life, and you're telling her all that you love about her at length, and then you get stuck in a traffic jam next to a bloody, horrible train wreck that is somehow being hosted by a ridiculous and endlessly annoying female clown brandishing a loaded AK-47 who also happens to be running for national office.

The subject of conversation changes, no?