But seriously, what do you think of the fact that she doesn't know anything about international affairs, national economic policy, or science? I mean, i don't think ignorance is a reason to judge someone or attack them...but I'd like my vice president to be a bit more knowledgeable and aware of say....things most people on here know about? I mean, don't you think all of us - conservative or liberal - regardless of our stance, have a pretty solid awareness of what global warming is and the theory behind it? Or what the bush doctrine is? Or the implications of Georgia joining NATO? Or the intracacies of invading pakistan - and the fact that we already did what Gibson asked her? repeat: Gibson asked her if she would attack in pakistan without their gov't persmission, and yet she didn't even say that it had already been done Wow - that's what stunned me the most. Why didn't she say - well, considering we have already done it, what's the point in this question? No - she simply was a deer in headlights. I'm sorry, but you love her because of party allegiance - nothing more. This is putting party ahead of country. McCain is putting politics ahead of country. So the whole country first thing is a bunch of B.S. Any objective observer can see she is not fit to run this country much less even be in the senate. She has no business being VP. I hope to god that independents start realizing this. I mean, honestly.
Hit the nail on the head. I cannot believe so many people are taking the Palin bait; hook, line, and sinker. This pick was not made because she was the most qualified, this pick was not made because of her policies, this pick was not made because of who she is. This pick was made because of what she is, a female and Republican. For a guy that says "Country First" to make such an un-Country First pick is complete and utter stupidity. WAKE UP people! People can sit here and talk about Palin energizing the base and others but you know who else she has energized? People like me and I am not saying that I am important but I am doing my damnedest to make sure this duo does not get to sniff the White House and I hope Palin energizes other people in the same ways. I'm getting my friends registered to vote and getting them to get others registered to vote (printing off registration forms, getting them filled out, and mailing them out of my own pocket), I speaking out about my feelings on the whole matter instead of politely not discussing politics with family and friends, I'm using methods to reach whoever I can wherever I can to stop the craziness, hell I'm posting in D&D now more than ever before because of it. Like i said, I know I am only one person but I hope this pick energizes others in the same way it has energized me.
LOL...She knows a good deal about science, she went to college...national economic policy?...She has dealt with local and state budgets, international affairs?...A lot of politicians have met with heads of state and got nothing done....Your points are weak...She has demontrated tremendous achievements... She is quite capable and has proven it at the executive levels...What has Obama proven besides just words and reading law...what has he been involved with at the executive level?...I'd like a President who is at least partially competent.... She knows all this, and then some...Regarding the definition of the Bush Doctrine...I don't care...It's not law...It's a made up phrase in which there is no authorized definition.... I love her for her looks...(just kidding) and for the fact she is a proven performer and a reformer of the status quo and a Washington outsider willing and demonstartive of tackling her own party...It IS about country first...She represents that extremely well...She is Ready NOW,...80% state job approval...Garnering independents...She is going for the throat!...a real, geuine (for a change) leader and absolutely ready, and overqualified to be the NEXT U.S. President...!...WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.........................................................!!!!!!!!!
ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fear Sarah Piglin, she knows science she went to college. LOL !! DD
Fear the Palin...She is coming...She is going for the throat...She got me excited!....I'm ready to put Sishir in a rear naked choke!...I'm ready for ground and pound...I'm getting pumped up....WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Sarah Palin my God...Stand up chuck...stand up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm energized!....Woooooo. p.s.....i'm not the only one according to the polls...
Yeah, i was confused by that statement as well. I know people that went to college and graduated who are dumb as a brick. My uncle is now a crackhead but hey he did graduate from college.
Yeah, but how does that explain George W, then? And the polls showed Kerry winning the last election. PYSCH ! DD
I actually remember that he was favored to win. I remember posting a thread that stated oil prices were dropping with a prediction of Kerry winning the race.
Who gives a rats ass about W...Funk that idiot...I'm too dern excited and pumped up about Palin...She is what I have been waiting for in regard to someone willing to bite the neck on their own party...Chop heads off those ineffective and useless, or not working for the people... Getting to the top on her own merits...Getting state job approval of 80%...Representing the small town folks...Not condescending on those with religion or guns... She is my dream come true for this country and my childrens' future...
George W has the same policies as John McSame..... Nothing new in McSame/Piglin - just the same old BS about reform....which their record doesn't support. DD
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe By Charles Krauthammer Saturday, September 13, 2008; "At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' " -- New York Times, Sept. 12 Informed her? Rubbish. The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?" Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense." Wrong. I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points. If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration. Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption. Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days. Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration. Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents. Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine. Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
^ What a waste of space. She didn't mistake one version for the other version - she had no idea what any of them were and didn't recognize the phrase
Wow, Charles Krauthammer defending Sarah Palin? Next thing you're going to tell me is that Sean Hannity isn't going to vote for Obama!
DC do you know who Charles Krauthammer is? We shouldn't even dignify his piece of **** article with a response. He's a joke. ' Anyway, back on topic.... Palin caught lying about her only trip outside the US. = From The Boston Globe ... Sarah Palin's visit to Iraq in 2007 consisted of a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the vice presidential candidate's campaign said yesterday, in the second official revision of her only trip outside North America. Following her selection last month as John McCain's running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq.The campaign has since repeated that Palin's foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone. But in response to queries about the details of her trip, campaign aides and National Guard officials in Alaska said by telephone yesterday that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait-Iraq border when she visited Khabari Alawazem Crossing, also known as "K-Crossing," on July 25, 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/
Not only that he's wrong - here's the Bush doctrine "of Striking Foes First" when it was announced in a policy document from 2002: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...933A1575AC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Not only that, I bet you could find an article or five written by Krauthammer around that time jacking off to neocon pre-emption wet dreams.
