Sarah Palin

[Barihawk]

It isn't restricted to just this one small forum. It's nearly all of them.

 

 

 

As for your argument, I am not particularly ready to give over my rights to the government. The government is, however, within it's bounds to put limitations on businesses to prevent them from screwing people over. But not to give orders to them.

[Kenshinjapan]

I do believe I stated that I believe him to be the lesser of two evils.

 

 

 

You clearly haven't read much into McCain's health or economic plans, especially the part where his entire plan of helping families get insurance is to cut massive checks to insurance companies.

 

 

 

The reason conservative thinking absolutely fails in this day and age is that they believe that a less interfering government helps people get on with their lives, when the actual reality is that a less interfering government just makes it easier for everyone to do their best to screw everyone else.

 

 

 

You also are disgusted at the amount of mud that people sling on this, a tiny forum that only runescape users visit, and turn a blind eye to the atrocity that was the commercial that insinuated that Obama wants to teach kindergardeners about sex before they learn to read.

 

 

 

There's a difference between a tiny forum and a national commercial.

 

 

 

Sounds like you're turning a blind eye to the commercials that the democrats are releasing.

[Hoobs]

what angers me is the media attention she receives about her daughter.

 

 

 

who cares if her daughter is pregnant? last i heard her daughter wasnt running for vp.

 

 

 

I'd have to agree. I'm disgusted at the mud flinging that the media has been doing. They fawn over Obama, defended him when New York magazine dared to make a negative cover about him, and make such a big deal about her daughter.

 

 

 

That aside, I guess it wasn't a wise pick, seeing as how McCain seems to be the reciprocal of Obama (Experienced for President/Inexperienced for Vice President, and Inexperienced for President/Experienced for Vice President respectively). She seems to have re-energized the Republican party though. :P

[jackattack]

I agree. A lack of foreign experience shouldn't carry weight. However, when one of these two situations applies, it does:

 

 

 

A) You accuse your opposing candidate of having no experience, and from this, say he is unfit for Presidency.

 

 

 

B) You try and say your own VP does have foreign experience, only to change your mind later when you realise people aren't falling for it.

 

 

 

 

 

I said foreign policy experience isn't an issue. Not experience overall. Now compared to Reagan, and Clinton, Governor Palin is relatively inexperienced and that is an issue. Still a Governorship is better experience than a Senator.

 

 

 

 

And in case you kids were wondering, McCain's economic and health plans are awful. Just plain awful.

 

 

 

Is that why 300 economists(including at least one who supports Obama) signed onto McCain's economic plan?

[magekillr]

Robert Kagan, a foreign policy advisor to McCain, derided criticisms of Palin as elitist.

 

 

 

I dont take this elite foreign policy view that only this anointed class knows everything about the world, he said. Im not generally impressed that they are better judges of American foreign policy experience than those who have Palins experience.

 

 

 

This is just starting to get ridiculous...

 

 

 

I should just quit college right now, and work for McCain.

[magekillr]

Alright, can we PLEASE stop acting like she is ready to be president now?!?!?!?

 

 

 

 

 

THIS WOMAN IS OUT OF HER [bleep]ING MIND!!!

 

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY

 

 

 

No story yet, it's an ABC headline from her interview that will air tonight. Not losing my head "completely" until I see the interview with the context, but erm, I cannot for the life of me think of any contextual situation where "war with Russia" should ever exist in a sentence.

[jackattack]

How about you watch the interview before spazzing out? The actual question was if russia invaded Georgia and Georgia was part of NATO and she said...

I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help

[magekillr]

How about you watch the interview before spazzing out? The actual question was if russia invaded Georgia and Georgia was part of NATO and she said...

I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help

 

 

 

Why should we help our allies when Russia's attacks, while over-zealous, were justified? Especially when we're already involved in 2 wars, with a currently insurmountable amount of debt?

 

 

 

That's NATO's job to intervene if anyone intervenes at all, not the US's.

 

 

 

edit: and I'm perfectly aware of Article 5.

[jackattack]

Okay she said that we might uphold our obligation to NATO and that is what you're flipping out about? And russia's attacks weren't justified.

[magekillr]

Okay she said that we might uphold our obligation to NATO and that is what you're flipping out about? And russia's attacks weren't justified.

 

 

 

Yes, yes they were. Disproportionate amount of force? Yes, but justified.

 

 

 

Military alliances shouldn't overrule common sense, ever, ever, ever. Entanglement with alliances is what caused WWI.

[Barihawk]

That very "entanglement of alliances" kept us out of WW3.

 

 

 

Russia was as justified for marching into South Ossetia as Hitler was for marching into Poland. The same damned reason, actually. Not to mention directly lying to the UN several times in regards to troop pullouts. Russia's inroads into Georgia were nothing but an attempt at belligerence.

[magekillr]

Russia was as justified for marching into South Ossetia as Hitler was for marching into Poland. The same damned reason, actually. Not to mention directly lying to the UN several times in regards to troop pullouts. Russia's inroads into Georgia were nothing but an attempt at belligerence.

 

 

 

Did Poland pay taxes to Germany, while another neighboring country attacked them, leaving Germany to retaliate in protection of their Polish ally? Horrible comparison. Not only that, but Germany faked those "attacks", Russia did not.

 

 

 

It would almost seem as though we'd like Georgia and other neighboring countries to Russia to be in NATO for a reason to use Article 5 as a means to attack them as well.

 

 

 

I'm not calling alliances a bad thing, but when they overrule common sense and proper assessment of a situation, then they're up for criticism.

 

 

 

Oh, and I did watch the interview, and she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. To me, that's foreign relations in the US 101.

[jackattack]

I think he's right. And I doubt very few people actually know of the term "Bush Doctrine" seeing as it isn't widely used and is only mainly applicable to Iraq.

[magekillr]

I think he's right. And I doubt very few people actually know of the term "Bush Doctrine" seeing as it isn't widely used and is only mainly applicable to Iraq.

 

 

 

How is he right? The two are not comparable whatsoever except that one country invaded another.

 

 

 

Very few people are possibly going to be Vice President of the United States #-o :roll: (That's not what your sentence says though, your sentence says that many people know what it is, but I know what you meant).

 

 

 

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

 

 

 

I mean... :wall:

 

 

 

[jackattack]

He's right in the respect that Germany used the fact that the sudetenland and other area's they wanted were mostly populated by ethnic Germans to give weight to his claim to them, and russia did the same thing in order to invade Georgia. And in Iraq they are still fighting Al Qaida over there. :wall:

[magekillr]

He's right in the respect that Germany used the fact that the sudetenland and other area's they wanted were mostly populated by ethnic Germans to give weight to his claim to them, and russia did the same thing in order to invade Georgia. And in Iraq they are still fighting Al Qaida over there. :wall:

 

 

 

Except...Georgia did the attacks, Russia did not, making it a completely different situation. Also, those ethnic Germans didn't pay taxes to Germany just because they were of German ethnicity.

 

 

 

*Sigh to your statement about her positioning on Iraq*

 

 

 

I give up.

[jackattack]

Okay so Georgia was trying to regain control of their own territory and then russia invaded Georgia way beyond any disputed territory and it's Georgia's fault? Anyway if it played out like that and Georgia was part of NATO we could still weasel our way out of helping them. And russia wouldn't have done it if they were. And we are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq.

[Ginger_Warrior]

It would almost seem as though we'd like Georgia and other neighboring countries to Russia to be in NATO for a reason to use Article 5 as a means to attack them as well.

 

In regards to Georgia, it annoys me that the Western media, in order to create an anti-Russian slant on the conflict, has presumed that Georgia's wanting to join NATO is a good idea.

 

 

 

Let's look at that conflict. Russia reacted disproportionately, I think we can all agree there. But the Georgian PM (or President, can't remember which) deliberately picked a war with Russia on the miscalculation the western world would come to defend it out of loyalty to its commitment to NATO. It was a totally hot-headed, and arrogant judgement that could very well have lead to a situation spiralling out of control. As it happens, the only thing that avoided WWIII was the fact Georgia are not in NATO, so we were not obliged to send military aid.

 

 

 

If Georgia becomes a part of NATO, it will only serve two purposes. Firstly, they may very well make that miscalculation again, only this time, we will have to declare war on Russia. Secondly, it only adds to Russia's increasing paranoia that the West is attempting to stop its rebirth as a superpower, and this naturally lends Russia as an ally to China, despite the two countries being at odds for most of the past few decades. On this logic, there needs to be a "buffer zone" between Russia and the NATO member-countries.

 

 

 

At least the French and Germans have figured as much, and have attempted to delay a decision on Georgia's inclusion into NATO.

[magekillr]

Exactly Ginger. When I first heard that we were pushing for Georgia to join NATO, it spoke to me as "Let's get Georgia to join NATO in hopes that Russia will invade or attack, giving us a means to attack Russia." Or if not attack, at least attempt to bully them.

 

 

 

We wouldn't necessarily be "obliged" to send aide unless Georgia asked for it, but as far as I'm concerned, no military alliance is worth WWIII without assessing the situation before hand. Again: military alliances should NEVER be greater than common sense.

 

 

 

Just because someone in your restaurant complains about one of the waiter's job, doesn't mean you go "Oh, hey, you're fired." You speak to them and assess the situation. More than half the time, the waiter was in the right.

[Deiophobus]

A little off topic, but you guys are confusing Poland with Czechoslovakia.

[magekillr]

A little off topic, but you guys are confusing Poland with Czechoslovakia.

 

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, Bari is referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

[magekillr]

Todd Palin subpoenaed:

 

 

 

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/524038.h ... 24038.html

 

 

 

The state Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 today to subpoena 13 people -- including the husband of Gov. Sarah Palin -- in an investigation of whether Palin abused her power in trying to get her former brother-in-law fired.

 

 

 

The legislative probe has taken on new significance since Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Palin as his running mate.

 

 

 

Retired prosecutor Stephen Branchflower asked the state House and Senate judiciary committees for power to subpoena the 13 witnesses, including Todd Palin, the governor's husband.

 

 

 

"He's such a central figure. ... I think one should be issued for him," Branchflower said.

 

 

 

The Senate committees granted the request. Voting for were Sens. Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla, and two Anchorage Democrats, Hollis French and Bill Wielechowski.

 

 

 

Voting no were Sens. Lesil McGuire, R-Anchorage, and Gene Therriault, R-North Pole.

 

 

 

Branchflower said he wants to interview Palin herself but did not ask for a subpoena for her.

 

 

 

In addition to authorizing subpoenas for the 13 witnesses, most of whom are state officials, the committee OK'd subpoenaing the cell phone records of Frank Bailey, a Palin aide who was placed on leave last month.

 

 

 

The Legislature hired Branchflower in early August to examine whether Palin ousted her public safety commissioner in July because he had refused to fire state trooper Mike Wooten. Wooten went through a messy divorce from Palin's sister, and the investigation essentially is looking at whether Palin used her power to try to settle a personal score.

 

 

 

Bailey was caught on tape discussing personal information about Wooten, raising questions of how he knew those details.

 

 

 

In sworn testimony taken by Palin's attorney, Bailey said he never saw Wooten's file but instead received the information from Todd Palin.

 

 

 

The state has threatened to go to court to block at least some of the subpoenas unless lawmakers agree the governor has legal authority to designate staff to review confidential personnel files. Branchflower said today he agreed with that interpretation of state law.

 

 

 

The investigation -- known as "Troopergate" -- began before Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. Since then, Palin's supporters and even her lawyer have charged that the investigation is politically motivated and urged lawmakers to turn the matter over to the three-member State Personnel Board, which is appointed by the governor and charged with handling ethics complaints.

 

 

 

Palin has said she fired the commissioner, Walt Monegan, over disagreements about budget priorities. Monegan says he received repeated e-mails and phone calls from Palin, her husband and her staff expressing dismay over Wooten's continued employment.

 

[Lordjake]

Palin's Global-warming Skepticism:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/ ... 3795.shtml

 

 

 

Since Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket, there have been multiple reports about her skepticism regarding the science behind global warming. Last night, during her ABC interview, Palin was pressed on her beliefs, and got a little defensive.

 

 

 

"Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," Palin told Charlie Gibson.

 

 

 

Well, what has she said? The AP takes a closer look, and concludes Palin's remarks to ABC are "at odds with her previous statements."

 

 

 

In the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." ABC cited the interview as being at odds with her statement.

 

 

 

I can appreciate Palin being embarrassed about her beliefs now; she's obviously well outside the scientific mainstream. If I were her, in my first national television interview, I'd be tempted to distance myself from right-wing talking points, too.

 

 

 

But Palin's record is Palin's record, and the fact remains that she's so far out there, she's rejected the connection between global warming and human activity. Indeed, she's done so more than once. This not only tells us something important about Palin's understanding of public policy, it also tells us a great deal about how she perceives and considers evidence that runs counter to her ideology.