Palin doesn't know about Bush Doctrine
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25408
Printed Date: 23-May-2024 at 09:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Palin doesn't know about Bush Doctrine
Posted By: hugoestr
Subject: Palin doesn't know about Bush Doctrine
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 15:42
|
Okay, you Palin/McCain foreign affairs supporters.
We all know how McCain can't tell Sunni from Shia and talks about the border of Iraq with Pakistan. So McCain is weak/ignorant/senile on foreign affairs. Here comes PTA mom Palin to the rescue. She is strong in foreign affairs because, the GOP says, she was governor of... Alaska (WTF???) Well, this interview with her, which was over coached, shows that Palin doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is. That is right. The major foreign policy of the U.S. for the last 8 years, and she doesn't know what it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU Let's make a deal. If you are planning to vote Republican, just admit that you are partisan. No biggie here. Being partisan is allowed. Sure, you may want to ask yourself why would you vote dumb and dumber into office, but that is up to you. But let's give up on discussing about how Palin/McCain are the people for the job. Obviously senile McCain and airhead Palin are not qualified or fit for the presidency, when doesn't know basic geography and the other one doesn't know the basic foreign policy doctrine that we have. |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 15:43
 ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 15:50
|
Unfortunately for us and the rest of the US population these guys will be elected and yet againt we will have another 4 years of stubborness and stupidity making the same mistakes all over again. That is of course if McCain doesn't die first and Msr Palin under orders from God plunges the world into a nuclear holocaust with Russia. Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 15:55
|
No matter how one slices it, we must face it, there are a bunch of typical politicians offered up to us this election from both sides. No one stands out as being better. Neither party has the priorities of the American people at heart. There is no third party that can make it. What do we do then in the opinion of all of you political geniuses?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:00
|
she is nuts. seriously out of all the people in the USA you throw up McPain and this muppet?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:26
This twit thinks making Ukraine and Georgia NATO members (a pipe dream but...) and risking war is a sound policy. Does she read the paper? she also thinks poor liddle Georgia was attacked and that Russia was unprovoked. She knows about russia becuase she can see it from alaska. The whole world is full of friends and terrorist... .and she complelety squirmed without commiting about Iran and nukes vis a vis Isreal. Serously Iran is going to give nukes to other terrorist! please she is a muppet confident talk covers the lack of substance, might work for those that dont understand the any issue beyond cowboy and indians. Fear fear fear. the whole interview is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubsUQKd9c7c&feature=related - www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubsUQKd9c7c&feature=related -------------
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:31
Again, let me reiterate. I am not acting as a spokesperson for the McCain/Palin ticket. There are those who are this type of sycophant on both sides. What angers me is the hatred for anyone who might have the "conservative" label applied to them regardless of th issues that they stand for. Would any of you who are ripping the current representation of "conservative" (I do not think the ticket is worthy of being called this at all) be willing to consider someone else with the same label if they had some policies you could agree with?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:36
|
Oh well. First I was afraid a McCain ticket would lead to 4 more years of Bush but without the humor. His choice for Palin has made sure that also in a next Republican administration there will be enough to laugh about.
------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:41
|
I agree with Leonidas here.
When she said she would go to war with Russia if SHE felt it was necessary. That kind of scares me knowing she'd be second incharge and one step away from being number one.
She doesn't seem to understand that other countries have their interests too and we can't keep fighting endless wars. Especially when they are outside of our own interests. I don't understand how she can say such a thing without hesitation, as if lives mean nothing? I don't know... ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:49
|
Hi, B.E.,
This has very little to do with real conservatives, and a lot to do with, for lack of a better word, "mainstream conservatives." If we just focus on values, liberals and conservatives agree in most things, having a difference in opinion on how to achieve common goals. Then these weird Lenin-inspired conservatives showed up and took over the GOP and the conservative media. They have twisted what being a conservative was about into the strange fascistic-religious mutant that mainstream conservative thought is today. If we take a step back we can clearly see this. What real conservative, in their right mind, want to bankrupt the U.S.? Are those crickets I hear? None. What conservative wants to destroy the U.S. military? None. What conservative wants to ruin the U.S. economy? None. Yet this is the platform that Palin/McCain are running on: another 4 years of Bush policies. If democracy is about holding people accountable, we got to do it. The GOP has wrecked the country, hurt the military, bankrupted up, and weakened the economy. They must be held accountable. Look, it is not really like much will change if Obama wins. The Republicans in Congress will make sure that nothing radical happens. And Obama is frankly very centrist. But we got to send a clear message to the GOP leadership that they must go back to real conservatism, rather than doing everything for big corporations and war contractors and cover it with a thin varnish of religious and blue collar populism. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:55
 That has been a common refrain for over 30 years...ever since Jimmy Carter - Mr. Peanut. |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:58
|
hugo:
The GOP leadership IS big corporate interests, religious interests and blue collar populists.
There are far more blue collar populists to pander to than Ivy leaguers....and the Corporations have the money....what makes politics go.
Haven't you been paying attention for the last 28 years?
 |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:59
|
Firstly,what conservative in the US and over here means are two different things. i'd vote either way and have voted conservative before, gone the other way and if they can put up a decent option with a brain/no bigotry i would go there agian. Why would anyone stick to one party or one political line? it simply throws up even more rubbish politicains and lazy policy. Swing voters, unsafe seats, always have had the power and the policy priorities. As for voting policy wise, well it had to be big ticket stuff like; defense, economics and foreign policy (more so for the US) - if they are ok on two but really stink on one its a still a deal breaker. i stopped voting conservative initally over foregn policy and when they became too conseravtive in that US way domestically. -------------
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 17:08
I agree for the most part with this assessment.
Real conservatism is definitely not represented in an accurate and fair light in the candidates the Republicans put up time after time for Congressional seats and the presidency. Also, most of the mainstream media refuses to draw a distinction as you have between fake conservatices hijacking religious values to serve political purposes and real conservatives who happen to have a strong faith that informs and shapes their values.
It especially pains me to see how these fake conservatives (and some liberals) have used Christianity this way and have poisoned its witness in the eyes of those who watch the news and believe that they represent the ones who are bible-believing, loving, humble Christians.
Yes, as I said before, although there are some things which I think are good about McCain/Palin for real conservatives, I can't help but worry that they are just teasers to get us to vote them into office, only to have them become another Bush administration or worse. At the same time, Obama definitely does not convince me or inspire me to vote for him.
Yes, I totally agree, particularly with the bit about the religious varnish. It must be tiresome and near cliche to hear this yet again, but neither party has the American people at heart, only the acquisition and maintenance of power. The question remains: what do we, the true conservatives and liberals who care about the Republic and what it originally represented, do about it?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 17:12
|
There seems to be the impression that policies decide elections.
TV (and now multi-media) and a physically attractive presence on the ticket; a fat war chest, and effective negative campaigning decide elections far more often.
Not always, but that is the way to bet.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 17:36
I know the feeling. She is a bit too hasty with decision making... while this is all hypothetical, there is still a valid chance that it would turn into reality, which of course would not be a course our government should venture. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 19:52
It's not a question of sycophancy but one of capability, competence and knowledge, as well as a set of priorities. When she was mayor and there was a choice between giving the town a ssewage works or a sports facility (or even a sewage factory and a reasonable sports facility) she chose a super sports complex. With local infrastructures crying out for improvement and windfall profits from oil available to the state that could have paid for it, she chose to distribute the windfall to the people in cash and borrow the money for the improvements. Which is little short of bribery.
She took a town with a balanced budget, and left it millions and millions in debt. This is conservatism?
This you want in a potential President?
But no-one here is doing that. The problem with Palin is the issues she stands for. I really don't know how anyone could call her conservative without laughing.
I wouldn't be arguing the way I am if Huckabee had been the nominee. Probably not Ron Paul, though I didn't follow him as closely. For instance make it a choice between Huckabee and Christopher Hitchens I'd be out swinging for Huckabee.
Because, whatever his religious views (which of themselves don't concern me, and I don't think should ever even be mentioned), he does seem to have his head screwed on reasonably about the real world, and not be living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Incidentally I consider myself 'conservative' in any real sense of the word: it's just that pretty well every nationally known politician in the US is somewhat to the right of me. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 20:01
'Real conservatives' don't have to have a 'strong faith that informs and shapes their values' and moreover there's no reason why having a 'strong faith that informs and shapes their values' should make one conservative.
That is exactly the sort of supercilious condescension that makes one's blood boil. Especially as you are quite obviously usiing it as a codeword for 'Christianity', as if Christians had some sort of claim to be superior. Nobody of any faith - or lack of it - can make that claim.
Especially as any true American conservative should cherish the Constitution which makes it quite clear that there should be no religious barrier to public office.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 20:04
Nothing new. Check out for instance how many Presidents were elected when known to wear glasses? (Other than re-elected or when they were running as sitting VPs.) ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 20:05
NO, I don't want EITHER ticket to be president! How many times do I have to reiterate that I do not like either one, Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin. The American people are being left in the dust no matter who becomes president.
As I mentioned earlier, this is what conservatives are stuck with, and Obama is what liberals are stuck with. Although it is a difficult task, I have been trying to defend real conservative principles through the discussion of Palin.
If I am defending her, it is only the few conservative values I think she might hold, as well as to show how much I dislike the modern media and their character assassinations. Yeah, they might be telling the truth on a few points, but they are overwhelmingly in the tank for the far left and would savage any person with the conservative label on them, fake or real.
Perhaps I am too cynical and pessimistic when it comes to politics, but still, I have a hard time believing that some people here would talk positively about or support a real conservative who puts theory into practice, just because they have conservative or Republican by their name.
Well, there is something on which we agree. I liked Huckabee a lot and had planned on supporting him if he made it out of the primary. Unfortunately, that did not happen and look what we are stuck with! ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 20:52
I agree Byz and... she is nuts. seriously out of all the people in the USA you throw up McPain and this muppet? ...besides anything she says the liberal media will try and twist it out of context because she is a Repulican. Frankly, both parties are globalist and puppets for the elite- we need other choices. I do not like McCain at all but given Obama's radical liberal socialist agenda I am forced to vote for the other evil. Look at Obama's supporters and it could make some of us cringe. At least I can vote unlike some here or some here who choose not to take this responsibility. Al Jassas do you live in the USA? ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 21:11
|
Eaglecap,
The conservative media, the mainstream media, are giving her an easy pass, to her and McCain. And the ultra right wing media, with Fox News, radio networks and losing newspapers funded by cults (Washington Times) keep whining and crying about how they are being persecuted and have no voice
The only radical agenda that I see is the McCain/Palin warmongering. And that is scary. It is scary to put idiots who don't know jack in power. Did you see that video that I posted? And I want you to to outline what exactly in the Obama platform you object to? Maybe, just maybe, could it be that you are just be repeating talking points without actually knowing what you are talking about? 
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 21:36
|
What liberal media? Surely none of these puppet cable networks...
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 21:43
|
I am not sure there is much "independent" media anymore. They are all struggling for survival in the enormous competition that there is now for advertising dollars. It seems that all the news outlets are more than ever hostage to the more closely watched advertising expenses. It doesn't matter if it is left or right.
"Be careful and wise as to what you print and say, or we may reduce the advertising revenue." It has always been true to some degree, but now, I think it is moreso because of the competition they all have. They have to pick their paymasters.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 22:16
|
Hello eagle
Unfortunately I never left the borders of good old Saudi Arabia. Why do you ask?
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 22:19
True. And it does not help any aspirations towards objectivity when the suits at the top are in the tank for the Democrats and Obama and they hire staff and reporters according to voter registration.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 01:37
|
I still don't know what too honestly make of her, without getting into a knee jerk reaction, but this seems and sounds like an interesting view from a liberal weblog:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/11/20922/5391 - http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/11/20922/5391
Now even the normally level headed http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/sarah_palin_on_bush_doctrine_h.php - Greg Sargent has it :
This is seriously nuts. Palin asked Gibson to define what HE meant by it. (NOTE: Stellaa points out that Gibson tried the same game with Obama and http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001 - Media Matters ripped Gibson for it then. Guess Sargent is ok with it when it is done to a Republican.) Indeed, her eventual answer to the question is extremely sensible (unlike Bush and McCain's actual policies) and smart politics. She did not accept the premise of Gibson's question and then gave a sensible answer to the question. This type of stuff is what is killing the Left blogs right now. They look like fools when they act this way. The video is on the flip. What does seem certain... is that noting seems certain anymore? ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 02:06
I see them very biased in favor of McCain. Otherwise, why is McCain keeps being called a "maverick" even though he voted along with Bush 89% of the time? And he is running on Bush's policies. If the behavior of the media says anything, is that their leadership is strongly favors conservatives. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 02:14
|
Hi, Panther,
You look at t he video and you make up your mind about it. This was a highly structured interview given under very precise conditions. As the video shows, the McCain campaign has a good reason to keep Palin away from the media. And she was still surprised by it and didn't know what to say. And even when it was spelled out to her, she couldn't come up with a straight answer. That says a lot. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 03:39
Like I said McCain is a poor choice and not a true conservative. I respect your view but some of Obama's radical changes scare me; such as: (Off hand) Hate speech law- end of free speech ( we have the right to criticize but that could be turned to hate speech) I am not totally unconivinced McCain would not back this as well. so-called fairness doctrine- McCain also might support this. gay marriage possible end to the 2nd Amendment Huge tax incresses to feed the poor of the world and a so-called global- Most of ths will end up in corrupt hand and not to the hungry massses- (remember food for oil program-UN) The stance on where life begins- that's above my pay grade- hmmmm!!! Global warming tax- bound to break the back of many American buisnesses With either candidate I see little hope for our country but the person I would like to see in office does not have a snow balls chance in Hell. Obama lacks experience also and tell me what great thing has he done or said- you cannont ever compare him to one of our greatest President John Kennedy. Please look who backs him- do some research and it might shock you people. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 05:03
I posted the whole interview, show me in that video where it has been twisted? before last year she never been further than Mexico or Canada and it shows. The whole ranting, strong words but little understanding sounds like Bush. We cant afford, you cant afford more of that unilteral cowboy sh*t. Notice how it doesn't work? The world is much more complex than how she seems to understand it. Its like hearing our own rednecks talk about global politics 'bomb the wogs' with rudimentary understanding beyond their own suburbs. I can only say thank god your Pentagon command are more rational and push back on such ridiculous ideas as bombing Iran, they learnt their own lessons in Vietnam. -------------
|
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 13:20
|
American media on the far left??? Obama's radical socialist agenda??? I have to see the doctor in case I suffered some permanent brain damage because I read this thread. With a voter base like this, I am sure McCain and Palin will easily win this election. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 13:38
Yes it is bizarre. The Republicans needed somebody to counter Obama's Rock Star appeal despite his "change to change yesterday to change tommorrrow for change" speeches.
In 2012, the new Rock Stars for president will be a...
Porn star and a NASCAR driver
Verses
Ultimate Fighting Champion and a crack head.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 19:33
What on earth is radical or socialist about Obama?
What you really mean is that your tribal loyalties will lead you to vote Republican as always but you don't want to have to defend McCain or Palin.
PS: Just on case I'm misunderstood, by 'tribal' I don't mean 'racial'. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 19:53
Free speech is already limited in the US. In general the more money you have the more freedom you have, but most of the censorship one sees is imposed by the right, and in particular Palin is an advocate of censorship, having attempted to get books banned in Wasilla library. What books did Obama ever seek to ban?
I don't get the reference.
What on earth is socialist, radical or liberal about gay marriage? Ar you saying there are no conservative gays? The evidence is somewhat against you. Or are you saying that conservative gays don't want the right to marry? I jhappen to thing talking about 'gay marriage' is nutty, but there's nothing socialist of leftist or whatever about it.
I can see that's a radical liberal - i.e. opposite to conservative - position, but I again don't see it as socialist. Belgium has very loose controls on guns, if any, and it's had many socialist governments.
Now you're making up bogeymen and dreaming up monsters. Of course Obama should raise taxes, America has desperately needed higher taxes for years, but however he's too wimpish to do so, and is already promising to cut taxes for the middle classes, rather than asking the US people to make any kind of sacrifice, since that's a surefire loser.
America doesn't give any kind of overseas aid out of taxes. It just uses the borrowed money it finances most other things with.
Legitimate issue, I agree. Though personally I don't think it should be in the political arena as a religious issue.
See quote above. Why is it American businesses are supposed to be so vulnerable to taxes, when the rest of the world gets happily by?
I'm fighting a losing battle against people using 'compare' when they mean 'liken'. Of course you can compare Obama to Kennedy or to Harding or to Mickey Mouse. Are you suggesting McCain resembles Kennedy?
Statements like that are somewhat more convincing when accompanied by at least some indication of who those people are, with preferanly some rationale for suggesting them.
As it stands it's just meaningless, as it would be were I to say to you 'Do some research into molasses and it might shock you'. Of course it might. But why would it? ------------- |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 23:50
Bey, you might want to right this down. I find my reaction the same as yours. Gasp! I agree with you. With this selection to choose from, I just might write you in.  You may not do any better, but it's for sure you couldn't do any worse. And the evening news would be a helluva lot more fun. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 00:03
|
Eaglecap,
What are your sources? Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage? You do know that these people not only do they lie, but that they are not even smart enough to lie for themselves: they get their opinions from the Republican Party as talking points. Also, it seems you, and apparently millions of Americans, don't understand how our constitution works. Because of its strong cultural significance, there is no chance that the second amendment will ever be nullified. No president can abolish the 2nd amendment. You need 2/3 in both the senate and the house and a majority of states. Numerically, there are more red states than blue states. Ergo, there is no chance that it would ever happen. Ever. And considering the conservative block of Democrats, not even if you had a Democratic majority would you have the 2/3 needed in the Senate or in the House to keep the change alive. In other words, Rush and Savage are lying to you to get you to vote for McCain, whom you obviously don't like. But they are counting that you will believe them and that they can scare you into voting for someone that you don't even find conservative enough. What gall do these people have. Again, nothing radical will happen if Obama gets elected. The congressional Republicans will make sure that that won't happen. The GOP knows this, but they still believe that they can play Americans for fools with their non stopping lies. Why would anyone let people lie to their face like this? I find this kind of lying very insulting. Doesn't it anger you to be treated with such contempt by the GOP? ------------- |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 00:52
| Either way you look at it, it doesnt matter who you vote for. We are still gona follow the same path down the road in the end =( |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 02:22
|
Actually, voting for Obama, or if you can't bring yourself to do that, not voting for McCain may help us from stop the free fall that we have been since Bush and his pseudo conservatives took power.
McCain winning can make things worse since he is promising to use Bush's policies. And we need to send a clear message of accountability to the GOP leadership. ------------- |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 04:03
 ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 09:46
|
Sarah Pain and attitudes to book censorship, fires the librarian who gets reinstated after public outcry. Her pose claims the two are not related but hey she is being investigated about having her ex brother-in law (and his boss he resisted) axed so I'll take a educated guess it was. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1kLecUOmlY&NR=1 - www.youtube.com 'God's will' in the construction of a gas line from1:50 Iraq is a part of 'Gods plan' 3.50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Ax2nTWhVM&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Ax2nTWhVM&feature=related  long winded and fluffy (the bit inbetwen the two tikmmes if the golden part,. This is a worrisome insight to the potential VP of the USA. Religion should not form a part of any politicians policy and rationale. stick to facts not personal faith -------------
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 16:33
Uhm, this so-called Bush Doctrine ... would Bush himself be able to articulate it in anyway that makes it looks like at least he knows what he's talking about, even if based on the wrong facts? I doubt it.
Uhm, which past US president or vice president demonstrated passing such a test when he was a just candidate?
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 17:56
Exactly. That sniveling, condescending sycophant Charlie Gibson sat there in his interview with Palin sighing and peering down his nose with his glasses on the tip like he was some kind of tweedy professor lecturing. You could practically see him salivating when he mentioned this stupid "Bush Doctrine" and Palin did not acknowledge it. This is the quintessential "gotcha" moment that these reporter hacks worship and pray they receive when they "interview" their targets.
Of course hochmeister Gibson would call the Bush doctrine "anticipatory self-defense" because he and his pals have a burning hatred for any attempt at self-defense whether it is unilateral or under the auspices of allies, as long as it is carried out during a Republican presidency. There was never one definition of foreign policy etched in stone, except maybe on the stone tabella of old washed up media hitmen like Gibson. Rather, the policy went through changes as the war progressed, from 9/11 to the present day. Gibson constructed this gotcha moment in an effort to make news for himself, to trash another big-bad Republican nominee, and to assert that Palin (never mind McCain) was goint to follow a carbon copy of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 18:13
Post ww2 I don't think Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy or Nixon (either in 1960 or 1968) would have had a problem. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 20:35
|
Dear B.E, since we're all binging our perspectives into these threads and our bias becomes quite evident. One thing that amuses me. The conservative slam propagation is alive and well. Some have even resorted to tactics that I envy.
Take a look below.
When liberals were dissing Palin here's what one conservative had to say: I love how this thread resembles the smokey backroom machinations of the DNC or Obama campaign headquarters.
After the media (Gibson) interivewed Palin that same conservative had more to say: That sniveling, condescending sycophant Charlie Gibson sat there in his interview with Palin sighing and peering down his nose with his glasses on the tip like he was some kind of tweedy professor lecturing...Gibson constructed this gotcha moment in an effort to make news for himself, to trash another big-bad Republican nominee,...
The dems have run amuck don't you know. How dare they critisize and ask tough questions!
Maybe, just maybe, republicans actually enjoy crafting smear campaigns.
Time to get rid of the sour grapes. What do you think now? Maybe it's not just liberals who have smokey backroom think tanks! ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 20:42
Actually, no, it is not a smear campaign on Charlie Gibson. This was not an accurate description of how he conducted himself in the interview? Was he the perfect picture of non-biased journalistic professionalism? Look at how Gibson and other "professional" journalists have acted when they interviewed Democrats in the past and compare it to this. Just this past week we saw how George Stephanopoulos was johnny-on-the-spot when Obama "slipped" and said "his Muslim faith." Ol' George wouldn't dare create a gotcha moment there; he just lent a helping hand. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 21:25
|
Everybody has their own stayle and personality. I don't think Gibson should be a Stephanopoulos clone.
I missed the slip up with Obama. What happened?
Look at it this way BE. The way I see it is that Republicans will not be satisfied till every trick in the book is played out and only till it brings their man/woman into power. You are doing the same thing. Complaining now about an interivew process, quite frankly that was soft. I wish I would have had a chance to ask her questions! But if we should have Captain Kangaroo interview her next time in order to avoid conservative wrath I'm for that too.
When Gibson asked her about national security (yes, with his glasses hangin down low - lol) she responded by avoiding it and talked about energy instead (why not? afterall she has very little military experience other than powers to call up the national guard).
Since she brings nothing much to the table she dissed people with political experience. "No more politics as usual and someone's big fat resume." Oh... OK!
BTW, isn't McCain an experienced, big fat resume, Washington insider? Who's ticket is she on anyway? Her own?
When pinned down (what a terrible thing for an interviewer to do) over a right or not to cross the border without Pakistani permission, Gibson sure did gave Palin hell huh? He wouldn't drop the question after she avoided a direct answer two times either. Darn he was stubborn.
Obviously she is selling herself and some people don't like to rock that boat (anyone come to mind?). I have more of a notion to take her to a weekend market and have her haggle for a few tomatos just to see what she is made of. I bet she will run into tougher exchanges there than a Gibson interview.
Her insight into Russia - "They're our nextdoor neighbors."! Nice foreign policy experience I would say.
Those answers she gave - don't blame us blame her!
------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 22:25
|
I am no Palin fan but it is clear that the question was tricky coming out of the blue and could have regarded several "Bush Doctrines" (environment, taxes...). No wonder she was bemused. Besides it is more of a academic lingo than a politician one. I for one had never heard it. Besides it is not such a commun expression. A quick search on the NYT shows that it has been used 3,850 times by the Journal since 1851 (most of it likely since 2002) but out of these it had been used 2670 times during the last week (and not once other than these during the rest of 2008). The journal Foreigh Affairs used the expression only once in 2008 (as wel as in 2007, 2005, 2003), twice in 2004, 4 times in 2006 and 5 times in 2002. Not exactly common. Quite a few books use the term "Bush Doctrine" (the rise after 2002 show that we are talking about THE Bush doctrine and not merely A Bush doctrine). Here is a graph including the number of times "Bush Doctrine" appeared every year in books registrated on google books (and compared with the Monroe and Truman Doctrines):  ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 22:26
And here is a more international look on the question (number of times the expression appeared in two European papers): More broadly, this debate inspires me two things: although the trick in this case was not perfectly fair, it is normal for journalists to try to pin down politicians, nine times out of ten politicians speak without any body to contradict them. If you think Gibbons was tough check out the Hard Talk show on the BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/hardtalk/ - here ) where the people interviewed are regularly burned alive by the journalist. Secondly, I don't think a person who knows something about a given subject can be perfectly subjective. In that sense I support opinionated journalists who clearly state their biais. I mean like that I'll know that I am more interested by the interview of a Republican candidate by a Democratic journalist. Seems fair to me. And by hard interviewing methods I do not mean trying to create the "gotcha" moment which is ridiculous (Obama's Muslim fait for instance or the Bush doctrine question to Palin) but actually asking the candidates to shed some light on the percived limits and contradictions of his/her program. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 07:03
Kennedy ... hmm ... I suppose his grooming would have come in handy ...
But as you might note, they went back decades ago from *today* ... the last was Nixon in the 60s ...
Says a lot about candidates in the 1970s onwards, doesn't it?
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 13:32
He spent his late youth, early manhood growing up in the American Embassy in London. Some of the people who knew him (and were still around when I was working in Fleet Street) admired his perception - a lot more than they admired his father's.
Says a lot about America since then too. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 15:06
|
Hello to you all
Actually I read by chance a first edition of his book "Why England Slept?" (1940). I said to my self if this guy wrote such insightful analysis of a deep foreign policy issue while only 22, he surely deserved to be Pres of the US.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 15:20
|
Read again your post, conservative friends.
Are you really advocating for a lower bar for both McCain and Palin? Just a few weeks ago you were saying that Obama didn't have enough experience and knowledge about the world to be president. Now, we all get swept into partisan lines. But again, does McCain and Palin represent what you believe? Every conservative ever defending McCain or Palin in AE is more qualified to become president than the GOP ticket. This is what the McCain/Palin ticket is all about now: lies, ignorance, unaccountability, and more Bush policies. Does this really represent you? I don't think so. Make McCain and Palin lose so that there can be real change in the GOP. If they win, those sleaze bags will believe that they can get away with it. ------------- |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 15:23
|
Presidents aren't expected to know everything.
What they must be capable of doing is making a reasoned judgement on what they are told.
They are told by experts in the various fields who will have been picked by the President for their ability in that field.
So a President must be capable of reasoned judgement/decision making AND be capable of picking men to advise him and who are capable of doing that even when the advice they give may not be palatable.
Personally from what little I know of the Bush doctrine I would prefer to forget and try and heal the damage
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 17:15
|
Hi, there,
Well, doesn't McCain picking Palin says a lot about his inability to pick capable people? And I do want to end the Bush doctrine; that is why we should vote for Obama, if if we can't do that, at least not vote for McCain. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 18:26
I don't agree but sadly I am forced to vote of McCain and as an American Citizen I have that right. Leonidas - if you really look at his supporters and his past actions as a Senator then his real intentions can be seen. McCain is a globalist as well. Read: Investor's Business Daily Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism Monday July 28, 6:55 pm ET Ibd Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code -- socialist code. During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati. ADVERTISEMENT And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval. It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series. "Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism. In the past, such rhetoric was just that -- rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state. In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all). Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" -- a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns. It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor. Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old. Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" -- "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means. Among his proposed "investments": "Universal," "guaranteed" health care. "Free" college tuition. "Universal national service" (a la Havana). "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families"). "Free" job training (even for criminals). "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels). "Free" child care and "universal" preschool. More subsidized public housing. A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor." And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa. His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't. That's just for starters -- first-term stuff. http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080728/issues.html?.v=1 - http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080728/issues.html?.v=1 http://chrisofrights.blogspot.com/2008/06/barack-obama-and-socialismmarxism.html - http://chrisofrights.blogspot.com/2008/06/barack-obama-and-socialismmarxism.html ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 18:30
Why are you "forced" to vote for the liar McCain?  ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 18:33
In my opinion he is the lesser of two evils but if you want Obama that is your right to choose. My sister supports Obama so I avoid politics with her. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 18:38
|
So you are going to vote Bush again in office? McCain is promising more of the same Bush policies.
Also, since glce pretty much showed that most of your beliefs in Obama are wrong, why don't you actually read him up and make up your mind yourself on him? ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 18:57
Many of the things Obama supports I am firmly against- I listed them earlier. True, I do not like Bush neo con Repubican he is. I am not a Republican but an Independent. I am still apprehensive about McCain. The people who I would like to see if office would never have a chance. Does Obama support hate speech legislation? A total affront to the First Amendment. We have the right to criticize; whether it be gays or radical Islam or any religion, philosophy etc etc Fairness or unfairness doctrine - both Obama and McCain would pass Getting back to Palin- I need to learn more about her so give me time. Would she help balance him???? I applaud your right or choice!! ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 19:26
|
Among his proposed "investments":
"Universal," "guaranteed" health care. "Free" college tuition. "Universal national service" (a la Havana). "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families"). "Free" job training (even for criminals). "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels). "Free" child care and "universal" preschool. More subsidized public housing. Thats a bad thing? ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 20:04
We can all agree that Congress can't wait to vote for the increased taxes to pay for all this....why, oink oink...it is pork isn't it?
Pork with more fat is bacon. The neoLibs will bring home the bacon at all costs.....to the taxpayer.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 20:41
|
Not necessarily, stop wasting money on things that make money for people involved with politicians and you cut out billions of dollars of bulls**t spending ( Iraq?, contracts...) that you can use for things that are actually productive to this society and not a few people in big business.
------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 21:05
|
Actually, I like that Obama list too. If that is socialism then, "Yes sir, may I have another"! Sorry eaglecap. Your list was intended to scare but all it did was appease the hungry. Time to get off that high horse now. Not yet? We'll wait. You can be reformed later you know.  Like Pikeshot mentioned, it's all pork. Big promises = big bucks. Earmark this Palin! At least Democrats don't lie about how they steal from you, in fact they tell how they will do it and then have the gaul to ask you to vote for them to do it. Ahh!... feels good... damn good! Republicans: I never asked for pork... The economy is on solid foundation...did I just say that...I meant to say, "those evil terrorists"...look at how malleable Obama is...VOTE McCAIN for CHANGE (The Straight talk Express). Democrats: We will bring universal health insurance ... more jobs to Americans ...raise the minimum wage...increase taxaztion to zee Rich...vee vill alzo tell you how painful it vill feel but you will still vant us to ze rescue...Zieg Obama! Zieg Obama! ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 21:12
Huh? Pork is pork, congressional Democrats and Republicans both pratice it, we don't need a war to point that out. Unfortunately, it seems to be that only war is what makes it an issue of waste! Other than war, quite a few Americans seem quite happy looking the otherway when they start too smell the bacon.
 Just curious... why do you gentlemen and ladies think the Republicans lost Congressional control? Hint: It has nothing to do with the brilliance within the 2006 Democratic strategy. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 21:20
|
Because it costs billions per day and it can be used on better things ;)
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 21:58
|
Hello to you all
Although I am not American I am amazed how some people don't get that the US is in a dire economic situation and that raising taxes is the only sure way to avoid collapse and raise money to keep the current corporate welfare system running.
Several days the IMF, the boogyman the US/Europe always use against poor nations, got access to the US economy to assess the Banking system there and the initials aren't encouraging. The failure of Lehman brothers (the largest in world history and nearly 6 times that of worldcom, the previous largest) is just an indication of how deep the crisis is. There is a strong fear that if the US government does't interfer soon, the entire financial system of the US will stop.
Since the US government already has a double deficit both of which are about 9% of the GDP and the size the public debt is roughly 72% of the GDP, the government cannot by any means continue to spend money this way especially now that it took Fannie and Freddie and incurred even more debt (4 trillion$). Only drastic cuts to government projects (which is impossible) or raising taxes could save the country. McCain says he won't raise any taxes but when he takes office, will he remain true to his word?
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 22:15
|
Wow, what a radical idea: government for the people rather than to bail out giant financial institutions.
And we all know what pork is: it is getting money into a state or district without a read need for it; sort of what Palin requested for Alaska. Sorry Pike, universal access to higher education isn't pork. Entitlement programs, maybe, but not pork.
So eaglecap, you got to explain to me something, why are these bad things? Universal," "guaranteed" health care. "Free" college tuition. "Universal national service" (a la Havana). "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families"). "Free" job training (even for criminals). "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels). "Free" child care and "universal" preschool. More subsidized public housing. I would like for these projects to get done, however the huge economic crisis that firmly conservative polices have created won't allow them to happen. ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2008 at 16:25
|
Obama's special spendings can be criticized. Although if I remember correctly the Clinton team had been pretty good at preventing the widening of the public debt, so I'd be reasonably confident in this regard. Moreover, Obama's team unlike Mc Cain's goes into details to explain how they are going to finance their reforms, Mc Cain's tax cuts nobody knows exactly where he is going to get the money from. Besides, tax cuts are not necessarly a good thing (see Sarkozy's in 2007, now he can't do anything). The real Bush legacy is to have stepped away from fiscal smartness (taxing when the economy goes well, cutting taxes when recession is around the corner). ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2008 at 20:06
All these things sounds nice but who will pay for it. Probably the middle class and not the very rich. He already wants a global warming tax and a tax to feed the poor of the world; which will most likely end up in corrupt hands and not to the hungry. Maybe you should hear her side before you judge so harshly. Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment Upside Down Get the Book Featured on Fox News! Sarah Palin's Authorized Biography "My friends and fellow Americans, I am very pleased and very privileged to introduce to you . . . Gov. Sarah Palin of the great State of Alaska." With those words Senator John McCain electrified the nation and shocked the political world by tapping the relatively-unknown Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Now, the major media is in full overdrive to smear and rewrite the accomplishments of this courageous young woman and rising Republican star. But who is the real Sarah Palin? She is more than a former beauty queen, conservative politician, family advocate, hockey mom with "lipstick" and moose-hunting NRA lifetime member. She is a true reformer who took on the political and business establishment in Alaska and won. And she may make history as the first female vice president of the United States. In Sarah, the first biography of Palin, author Kaylene Johnson draws upon personal interviews with Palin herself, her family, and closely placed sources to explore her private and public life. Sarah also includes 16 pages of Sarah Palin's most personal photos! In Sarah, you will find out: the real role her faith has played in family life. the surprising event that turned her from hockey mom into a full blown political activist. what she did on the Alaska commission overseeing natural resources that stunned everyone — Republicans and Democrats alike how she took on the incumbent Republican governor and beat him why she decided to make her family so much part of her public life why she is hugely popular with approval ratings above 75% among Democrats and Republicans how she became known as a "pit bull with lipstick" and much, much more. This is a powerful book about a very ordinary person who has done extraordinary things. Inspirational yes. But a must read for anyone who wants to know the real Sarah Palin, the lady who may someday be President. The author says: "I had watched Palin's rise to the state's highest office with interest. Jaded as I was about politics in general, the notion that people could take government back into their own hands renewed my faith in the democratic process. It was an opportunity to learn and write about a fascinating woman who made Alaskan history by being the first woman and the youngest governor ever elected." Find out how you can make a difference — read Sarah Palin's story! *EDIT - I took the liberty of removing the picture of her book but did leave the remainder of your post intact. As a reminder we do not promote commercial or political products especially as the sole arguement of our posts. You have hardly written more than one paragraph of your own commentary but copied tons of prepackaged material of her own book and used the publisher's words.* ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2008 at 20:33
|
Eagle, stop the spamming! Please. We just want to rear about your answers to questions and learn about your opinion of Palin. I could care less about what book FOX media suggests. Notice my note in your post above. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2008 at 22:06
|
Eaglecap,
How are we paying for the war in Iraq? War costs are eating away about 40% of the nation's income. How come having your money pay for deaths in Iraq from both sides cause you such a strong reaction as not wanting to pay for universal education. Didn't you get help from the government when you got your degrees? ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2008 at 22:12
|
Who is Sarah Palin:
Sarah is a hockey mom that doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is. Palin is flip flopping pork seeking governor of Alaska, who was so against pork that she hired lobbyist to get more for her. Palin is lying politician that inflated the numbers of how much energy Alaska makes. Palin is the neglectful mother of a child with Downs Syndrome, whom she loved while he was in the womb but whom she couldn't put before her ambitions once he was breathing. Palin is also the wife of a radical right-wing secessionist from Alaska. Palin is also the mother of a child who is pregnant out of wedlock; rumors have it that Palin herself was pregnant out of wedlock and that he was married to her husband with a shotgun. These are the family values that the GOP are offering? No thanks. I prefer the traditional ones that I hold and both liberals and conservatives have; you know, the ones where you raise children, pay attention to them, and love them. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2008 at 22:17
What I want to know is where all of our tax money towards the military is being spent. What about all the heavy weapons technology that we have? Why isn't it being used against our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan? It sickens me to see them send the Marines into the meat grinder to be blown up by hidden explosives and captured and have their heads sawed off on camera. I want to see them employ those assassin drones, heavy tanks and artillery, and the air force. The Marines should be sent in afterwards in a mop-up role.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 02:06
|
Hum and one more thing about Palin, even when she talks about energy she doesn't what she is talking about. During her speech at the RNC she said that 50% of the US energy was imported which is wrong as only 50% of the US oil is imported, which is a serious mistake since she totally forgot to mention that most of the electricity was home-made.
------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 14:39
And who benefits - the taxpayer. Anyway it's about time the US taxpayer paid for something, he's been riding along on foreign loans for long enough. (As the markets are showing.)
Apart from national service and 401ks, the world's rich countries (i.e. the ones who pay their own bills) have all these things. Why shouldn't the US aspire to have them?
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 14:44
Dream on. And go back to the joystick amd trackball.
What sickens you is what is called 'war'. It tends to be sickening. It's good you are realising that. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 16:58
|
According to an analysis made by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the use pays 43% of its annual income on military expenditure.
29% are going to pay for the current war. 14% goes to pay off past war spending and military pensions. %20http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxDay08.pdf - http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxDay08.pdf As for why the U.S. is not using the high tech video game technology is because of the nature of the war in Iraq right now. The U.S. was built, and is still being armed, for fight other armies. It was not design to fight low tech guerrilla insurgency. Unless you are advocated blanket bombing of civilians, which is a war crime and morally wrong, the U.S. cannot use those weapons. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 17:11
"Video game technology"? When did I say anything about that, whatever it might be?
Also, I am not going to give you the opportunity to tag me with advocating war crimes and being a hypocrite to my beliefs. So please remove that notion from your mind.
Fear can be a good weapon to coerce enemies into giving up their positions. I think the heavy weapons technology could do this with a minimal amount of damage. Notice here I am not advocating nuclear strikes or carpet bombing civilians.
Nevertheless, the ideology which we are fighting in these areas removes a good deal of fear from those who subscribe to it. How do you propose we fight against an enemy who is spurred on by the ideology of radical Islam, suicidal martyrdom, and in the end, utter nihilism? ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 17:24
Unfortunately one of the easiest things people do on a forum is to judge someone else. It doesn't help the person under the microscope that the material he/she provides raises doubts about character.
How do we fight against such an enemy as bound and determined as those fighting our oppression? Simple. Beat them till they comply with our every demand or plain old leave. That is it really. People have every right to stick up and fight to the death for their property, families, jobs and country. Oppressors have always lived off of borrowed time anyway. Call those who dare fight us as being suicidal, radical or whatever. Still doesn't change the basic truth that we invaded them and not the other way around. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 17:42
Could you be more specific as to whom is under the microscope in this instance?
I meant to include something about how I knew that answers would be given in which those whom the USA is fighting in the middle east are pointed out as being freedom fighters who are merely "sticking up" for their invaded families and properties. I think everyone in here realizes that the USA "invaded" Iraq. But is the USA "oppressing" the poor helpless populations more than the previous regime(s)?
But lets get back to what is practical in this situation. You mentioned either fight to the bitter end or get out. I am assuming that you think the USA should withdrawl immediately despite any consequences this decision might have for both the USA and the Iraqi people. However, I will still ask, what should be done in your opinion, practically speaking?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 18:34
|
We are all under the microscope. Some of us wonder why we are viewed in a certain light. I definately think the US has oppressed everyone in Iraq that is not paid-for hire. When you describe them as 'poor helpless' populations (regarding the Iraqis) it appears that you are either condescending or don't care to empathise with them. We sold them a bill of goods. To rid the Iraqi people or Saddam. Mission accomplished. So?..well...pizza's cold...don't let the door hit you on the way out...
The US invasion and rebuilding efforts have displaced millions of Iraqis. Do we ever hear about this human cost on the television? We have check points and road blocks. We have curfews and armed patrols. We have daily explosions and mass murder (roadside bombs, markets, schools, mosques). We have billions of debt due to the war. You tell me. Is the US now more oppressive than previous regimes? Yes for here and yes in Iraq. Our oppression is that we are a weaker country financially and now we have to suffer. Our oppression there is that Iraq has not been rebuilt and they don't want us there (along with the multitude of valid reasons we gave for them). Those people are just that, people. Poor, rich, helpful or helpless. We took down their leader and did not leave. By staying we have had to face numerous undermining operations against our power. Sure we can have resolve, spend more money in the region and wish for someone to actually like us. Too bad it had to be this way though. Since this mess needs cleaning up we should focus on how best to do that. Are we going to run Iraq or not? We fostered some sort of election system and called it democracy then allowed that system to bring Shi'tes into power at the cost of ignoring Sunnis, and other disgruntled ethnic factions. Who knows, maybe Sadir will win an upcoming election and Bozo the Clown the one after that. We have to face it that sympathies in that region are with Iran and the Arabs, not the US.
Fight or get out? Practicality and wisdom are acts of this saving grace. I like to win just like any other guy. However, I don't like to look like a fool and I do realize when I'm wrong most of the time. First off, I would demand clarity. A line of reasoning I could digest. I would want our leaders to tell us exactly why we are there. What prupose we have for the long term and what it will cost. Once I know those facts then I could make a sound decision. But, you know, this administration is not about being frank and straight with the people. We still have doubts and we still have caught our leaders telling us lies and half-truths. This lack of confidence creates a disconnect.
Next I would gather that info and make a decision. A decision to wait for a favorable wind (which I can't control) or a decision to implement a planned strategy. But first I must know my aim and purpose. This is only the begining of what should be done. The actual doing it would be next. Consequences will be paid either way. Some good and some not so savvy. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 18:50
Unless an individual actually buys the idea that their sticks and stones could actually hurt us... or that we are actually doing good by killing thousands of civilians and by proxy be responsible for the civil war that broke out post invasion... ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 19:07
|
Hi, B.E.,
Sorry for implying that you said that this was video game war technology. You didn't. On the other hand, the U.S. military does sell it to the public as it those weapons were like video games, which precise guided missiles, drone planes, etc. That is why I referred to it like that. As for the second position, I wasn't implying that you were advocating for this either. Read my post again and you will see that. I was saying that the high tech weapons won't work for urban guerrilla warfare because they were not design for it. Unless one is willing to commit war crimes, we cannot use them. That was my point
You got to explain now how can you actually use heavy weapons without killing a huge amount of civilians. I don't believe it can be done. Now, as for fear, I am afraid that we already used up our chance to use it. Fear works before you strike a blow. Once you are punching the person, the worse happened and they survived, and every new blow just makes their hatred for you grow. Also, you may want to explore the morality of using the weapon of terrorism, fear, to fight terrorism against a nation that didn't participate in terrorist acts against the U.S. As for fighting terrorism, we must address two issues: how to deal with current, active terrorist and how prevent more recruits. Current terrorists are not nations. They are gangs of criminals. Police action, not military action, is needed. And to prevent new recruits, we need to be nice in the region, to present a different narrative than what terrorists say about us. So far we have fulfilled many of its worst descriptions about the U.S. American soldiers have started many great programs, but we need something coordinated by the whole government, similar to what the Kennedy administration did in Latin America during the 1960s all the way up to the end of the civil war. You will be amazed how much good will cans of butter and sticks of American cheese can do.
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 12:47
Could you provide sources es_bih? (I'd look myself but I've not the patience when it comes to politics
 ) Especially for this:
That is the most important issue for me this election. I've been on the fence regarding candidates (as of the moment I'm considering Nader
 ), but if this was true (depending on what exactly is implied) and would be properly inacted (and more importantly could be inacted) I would go out and campaign for Obama. I have suspected myself moving closer and closer to socialism for the past couple of years, to reiterate what Seko said, if that is it sign me up. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 14:54
|
I quoted that from eaglecap's post. He fears such things for some reason.
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 17:56
|
As much as I would like to say that Eaglecap's list is correct, I am afraid it is not. The scope of each point is a lot more limited. Translate all of the "free" to "more help" or "affordable."
Still better than the alternative, which is nothing. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2008 at 22:07
I agree with you on the war but can we afford more taxes??? I would love free medical or seeing free tuition but at this time can we really afford it? As for Palin, I am still reading about her but as for Obama he is way too liberal for me. Sad we cannot ressurect John F. Kennedy!! My answer is NOBAMA!! It is an obamanation for me!!!
The war in Irq I was wreary about from the start and did not really support us going there but that is water over the bring, can we afford even more costs. I know what Obama is saying or implying is simply pandering for the vote, like they all do. No new taxes!! or Don't ask don't tell policy Frankly, most of them are liars. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2008 at 22:19
|
Hi Eaglecap,
You still are not answering my question. You are upset about new taxes, but you are ready to vote into office the people who are squandering tax payers money in destruction and death. Certainly, being a conservative you respect life, don't you? Doesn't the wanton destruction of life bother you? ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2008 at 22:21
I suppose if you want more government that is your right but I did not want more of it or more contorl. Did you grow up in the communist ear es-bih in your home country? Maybe this influenced your need for more big brother. Both sides have been guilty of this but in my opinion McCain is the better choice. why do you dislike Palin? As a Muslim I am preplexed as to why you would support such a liberal with his support for gay marriage or his support of the radical gays. The majority of Muslims I have personally met were strongly opposed to homosexuality. They always told me, "kill them. " Something I do not agree with. My experience is only a small pool of maybe 6-7 so maybe it does not reflect the majority. I have never heard a Christian says this but "instead, Love the sinner - hate the sin." Even though she is a Christian Palin agrees with many of my values. I like the fact she is a hunter like myself and she believes in the family- another Muslim value- why??? ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 01:42
I am sorry I did not get back with you since I have not set my own computer up yet- I use library or friend's computer for now. Of course it does and who says I supported going to Iraq but I thank you for the concern. I just do not like the way Bush is handling the war but that is for another thread. Remember Palin!! Pulling out with our tails between our legs, like Obama originally planned, would turn into a blood bath. I have not kept track but what are his current plans? I wonder why the left is so afraid of Palin? Dr Laurie Roth from the Roth show seems to hit it on the nail. Read it you dare!! The fear by the left is Overwhelming. How do they treat Sarahphobia? Laurie Roth The leftist media and Obama camp not only have their knickers in a twist because of McCain’s brilliant, maverick pick for V.P. Sarah Palin, they can’t find enough therapists to deal with the fear. I don’t recall in my life time Presidential elections where children have been savaged and attacked so readily. Of course, as the masses have heard of Sarah’s pregnant daughter who has plans to marry and keep the baby by the way, Obama has come out and said that kids are off limits. If course we all believe and know that he nor his warm and fuzzy campaign had anything at all to do with the spot light on Sarah’s pregnant daughter by the psychotic and judgmental media. Obama and our mainstream media just want fair ball and real headlines. I’m sure that’s why Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes, had a headline on his blog until a few days ago that was “Did Sarah Palin take proper Pre-Natal care?” In his article, (now mysteriously off his blog, no doubt from the heat) he was attacking her poor judgment to not immediately go to the hospital when allegedly her water broke. Instead she got on a plane. What does the above headline really say about Sarah Palin? It attacks her judgment as a mother and implies she didn’t care for her disabled baby before birth. I said last night on the air that it was only a matter of time before the wackoid left in our media went after her down syndrome baby. Instead, Alan went after Sarah’s judgment while pregnant with her son. We’re on a roll now, watching the panic-stricken breakdowns of fear by members of the media…..so, who’s next? So far we have smashed her daughter (who after a pregnancy mistake has done and is doing the right thing), we have seen her choices in pregnancy attacked by Alan Colmes, now we see a tabloid accusing Sarah of having an affair with her husbands partner. By the way, Sarah and her husband have come out strong saying it is a vicious lie. In fact, there is talk of a lawsuit against the magazine that trumped this crap up. Hark, there is still more to come since the left is SO SCARED! They’ve only gone after Sarah, her daughter and baby care, at least we have 3 other children we can highlight and ruin publicly. Perhaps her son in the military who is going to Iraq to serve his country can go splat for us. Maybe the leftists can find evidence of him lying or getting drunk somewhere. Maybe he cheated on a Math test in high school or something. All this drama against Sarah Palin, of course not by ANYONE associated with Obama, only shows how spot on she really is as the right conservative pick by McCain. It is high time another insider in Washington wasn’t picked, but rather, a REAL person, Mom, public servant and patriot. It is my prediction as people get to know the real Sarah Palin, they will be drawn into a history making maverick team that will dare to take on the establishment and serve the people again……not good old boys…..not the polls……and not money. McCain, in my view is too globalist for me and needs to continue to move to the right on several issues, but he certainly is moving grandly in the right direction by picking a real conservative, woman and servant who is for drilling for oil, gun rights, protecting borders and security and lowering taxes. Finally, McCain has repeatedly shown us courage, bravery, a maverick spirit and integrity when he served his country in the military and was repeatedly tortured and survived. He’s the first to admit his life has been imperfect and the worse mistake of his life was failing his first marriage as stated on national TV during his Rick Warren interview. I don’t know about you but I don’t need perfect. I need a leader who will listen, learn from his mistakes and serve and protect our fine country. Turn to Hymn number 299. Let us stand and sing, Amazing Obama how sweet the sound who saved a wretch like me I once was lost but now am found….was blind but now I see. At the Democratic national convention the ‘Change’ messiah has been anointed this week. Isn’t that precious!? We’ll see change all right if he is in the White House. What are the changes Obama will promote and what has he voted on and talked about so far? 1. He has promoted in congress and will continue to push the largest tax increase, a trillion or more, to ‘solve’ world hunger. Note: The dictatorships and Muslim radical controlled countries starving and abusing their people currently need more money for more mansions, cars and planes. Let the poor slaves work, suffer and die. We saw this with the multi billion dollar scam with the Oil for Food program in Iraq sponsored by the U.N. really helping and growing the bank accounts for Hussein and his henchmen, pervert sons while the poor Iraqis continued to suffer and starve. How do you eradicate world hunger, with money filtering through nightmare and greedy regimes? What other change can we look forward to? 2. How about another monolithic tax increase to solve global warming, gas emission problems that don’ really exist and are refuted by most of the international scientific community? Note: It sounds so good though to support ‘clean water,’ ‘polar bears’ ‘emergence of bio fuels’ and struggling mother earth in general. There are only a few small problems here. The polar bears are fine and prospering. The obsession and hyper focus on bio fuels, redirecting corn from food to fuel is causing food prices to go dramatically up worldwide and many are starving. Our food prices have also been going up as our normal corn and wheat supplies get redirected to alternative fuel. Remember the real priorities. Mother earth and alternative fuel is what matters, not starving and suffering people, but let’s hurry up and tax the American people to solve world hunger! Other looked for and needed change: 3. Continue Obama’s support of abortions, and its different styles and shapes…..early abortion, late abortion, partial birth abortion, a child sneaking across state lines to get abortions. Naturally, we understand Obama and Michelle’s devotion to their lovely daughters, children and family values. I guess it’s just the young ones, largely black by the way, who don’t get to live. That is a protected choice, slaughtering millions of babies. Is this the part in ‘change’ where we get to hear about Jesus and God again? Of course, Obama tried to show his family and traditional leaning by picking Biden as his running mate….Mr. devout Catholic. Of course, once again, just one small problem, Biden is a poser Catholic and is totally pro abortion in his voting record. What hymn shall we sing now as we contemplate all this glorious change? Finally, lets consider the change about dealing with Islamic Radicals and terrorists? Obama says he plans to pull our troops out of Iraq and is harping on the growing danger in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran with Al Kaeda. Does he not see the obvious connection with a more secure Iraq and a more secured and controlled Iran? Not that this war with Islamic Fundamentalists has been handled perfectly, but Obama talks of endless discussions and kiss up to terrorist regimes. How can we think anything different when on his recent trip to Israel and Europe, he told Hamas he would consider splitting up Jerusalem, yet days before he told a Jewish group in the U.S. he wouldn’t support splitting up Jerusalem. Then there is more important talking from Obama’s fund raising supporters and friends supporting anti Semitic and anti American things. Professor Kalidi, major fundraiser and friend of Obama, brought over the celebrated Iranian President, Ahmadinejd for talks in the U.S. If only Hitler was alive, we could have brought him over too. The bottom line is that with Obama’s Muslim background and liberal, kiss up foreign policy leanings he is the favorite of terrorist groups and regimes world wide. Why wouldn’t you want a man in the white house who will support hundreds of billions of dollars coming your way, while taking it from the dreaded capitalist Americans in taxes? After all with spread of Islamic fundamentalism, Obama will just talk, sometimes scold, but mainly look the other way in the name of civil liberties and freedom of speech. Boy, the left really does dislike here but Dr. Laurie can help. Obama, the anointed saint of the democratic convention wants to change America. Sarah Palin brings hope to the misdirected GOP Laurie Roth Lets help the left with more headlines. They are into making stuff up so lets help them. My aren’t we frightened? A real patriot and woman running. She loves her husband, she is a proud mother of 5, didn’t abort her child with disabilities, is a maverick reformer and even took on her own party and lowered taxes. What will be the next headlines for the left…..of course, not the ever so gracious Obama folks. Sarah Palin is a wanna be lesbian because she hugs women. Sarah is having multiple affairs because she hugs men. Sarah’s son in the military going to Iraq, really is escaping the law in Alaska because he didn’t pay a traffic ticket. Sarah is really a wanna be serial killer since she enjoys hunting. Sarah has 3 STDs since she sleeps around so much. You can’t blame Sarah for being a closet lesbian and sleep around hussy. Look at her husband….he is gay. Sarah was mayor of Tea Cup Alaska, population 20 and declining. Expect ridiculous assaults to continue on Sarah Palin….and family. Her bottom line is real service to Alaska, family and God. She is an inspiration and not a contrived sound bite. She is the real deal. I’ve never been a McCain fan due to his issues supporting amnesty and globalism, however, he has shown me that he is capable of listening when he chose a pro life, REAL conservative whether she was a female or not. Maybe if we all exercise our people power and communicate more with our next President and members of congress they will all get the message of us wanting real priorities. Finally, McCain has a history of not just being a globalist, but also is a great man of courage, bravery, valor and love for our country. I’m convinced now with his choice in a V.P. that he did listen to his conservative base rather than go fifty-yard line with a V.P. choice. Maybe there is hope yet. http://therothshow.com/home07.htm - http://therothshow.com/home07.htm ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 05:28
|
Who is Laurie Roth? Your latest spokesperson?
Eagle preaching to yourself again? This time you wrote 3 small paragraphs and left the gist of your post for someone else to fill in the spaces. Maybe you can get her to sign up as an member of AE. That way you won't have to lift a finger.
Remember we encourage debates among real members not some campaign spinamster. Save us the torture and just provide a link next time.  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 06:43
|
Hello Eaglecap. We have "more government" today due to right wingers more than before. The freedoms you are concerned about being stolen from you by liberals have already been pissed the last seven years and several months, people have been detained and personal freedoms discarded via the patriot act, and an illegal war that - also through a hasty decision - enables the President an unconstitutional right to make war without approval of congress. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 06:47
|
I am a Muslim, a proud one, but also with a rational thinking brain. Yes, I believe that homosexual couples should get the same protection that we heterosexual individuals get. I do not see why we cannot have homosexual marriages in a secular country. You can stil have a religiously based service and marriage contract between two heterosexual people - and a secular marriage that has nothing to do with religion for homosexual individuals - and as a matter of fact for anyone else who is not religious. Islam is all about common sense and personal freedom of choice and not infringing on any one elses personal freedoms so for me in Islam homosexuals can exist in harmony with people because they are people like anyone else and do nothing against the social fabric as they are under no crazy left wing nut conspiracy to take over the world.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 06:49
And liberals do not promote family values? Obama is happily married with two children... uhm... and as far as I know he has never been caught b===ng anyone in a bathroom as have right wingers ( the same people they pass legislation against  )
------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 08:50
|
why did Palin decide she would not co-operate in the investigation into her alleged use of her office to try to fire her brother-in-law? ------------- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 11:31
|
What has any of this to do with the real problems the US is actually facing?
Not least of which is its dependence on the kindness of strangers because of its refusal to pay for expenditures via taxation, and insistence on simply borrowing from others.
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 19:25
|
Oh, Eaglecap, you prankster, you,
These attacks, the ones that I quote below, are conservative attacks on Palin. For one, as you well know, most liberals don't have a problem with homosexuals. The ridiculous claim that Palin is a homosexual would only bother conservatives.
In other words, this is a slime attack invented by conservatives.
Obviously you don't believe in them either because no intelligent person would fall of this stupid conservative diatribe. And no intelligent conservative would ever even defend this nonsense. It makes it look like there is nothing defensible about Palin, so the only argument left is to pretend that liberals have a witch hunt on Palin. Okay, that was funny, but now, could you please tell me why Palin is actually qualified? ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 01:48
Seko did you even brother to read it or are you afraid it could reveal some truth to you, no disrepect intended. Seko there are others who agree with me such as byz Emp and others I know about so I am not preaching to myself and it was really meant for all you libs. What our founding fathers intended and what Obama intends are opposites but same could be said about Bush with his globalism. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 02:08
He also promotes values that many people oppose and are anti family ,although,it is true Obama seems to be faithfull to his wife and I applaud him for that. I cannot recall hearing about McCain having an affair. he has never been caught b===ng anyone in a bathroom as have right wingers Not just right wingers!!! You are funny my friend! Off hand Edwards- his wife is sadly dying of cancer Of course Clinton with his muliple affairs- remember Monica!! Anyone else want to help with this list- Byz Emp??? Why do you really dislike Palin es_bih? ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |