Actually Panther, not that I disagree about the Illinois senator's remarks and do think that Obama is still suspect, however you may not have noticed that Bush did really send troops into Pakistan.
Strain in ties as US launches ground raids inside Pakistan
by P. Parameswaran Fri Sep 12, 10:07 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US ties with "war on terror" ally Pakistan are strained after US commandos unilaterally launched ground assaults on militants on Pakistani soil, drawing fire from the military chief in Islamabad...
i rarely care to tell people what foreign leader i support, and whom they should elect as to lead their country!
If the American President did not go around bombing countries, nobody would have cared who you elect.
Not so! People from other countries have been interested in influencing or concerned about US Presidential elections atleast going back before the days just prior to WW 2. Of course it is not just a phenomenon unique for the US, it is just in man's nature too try and control what isn't currently in his control!
[/QUOTE]I can assure you our interest is very much heighten after the heavy footprint the USA makes on the world. A introspective protectionist USA would interest us less, sheer size of that market would mean it makes a difference, but not in that 'will he or wouldn't he start a war' way. Can you see what questions we are asking about and what words we are looking at? its not about USA medicare policy it about their foreign affairs and their attitude to other powers.
Bush aint no spend thrift, we can look at the accounts over iraq and the type of money simply pilfered by both Iraqi's, oppositional groups and politically aligned US contracters. Nothing was done to control such large amounts and prevent wastage. I am not even talking about the destroy first, rebuild later wastage the USA did to begin with. He simply has been throwing massive licks of money around with little accountablity and effect.
Actually Panther, not that I disagree about the Illinois senator's remarks and do think that Obama is still suspect, however you may not have noticed that Bush did really send troops into Pakistan.
Strain in ties as US launches ground raids inside Pakistan
by P. Parameswaran Fri Sep 12, 10:07 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US ties with "war on terror" ally Pakistan are strained after US commandos unilaterally launched ground assaults on militants on Pakistani soil, drawing fire from the military chief in Islamabad...
That is just plain out denial my friend. We have ample proof on the market that he knowingly had Powell speak about nonexistent weapons facilities, we know that the CIA gave again knowingly fraudulent information, and fake reports on the Saddam - AlQueada alliance, which is laughable since he was a target of theirs alongside Iran (they after all have a quarrel with secularists - Saddam - and shia - Iran -.)
I don't believe Mr. Obama is the peacenik many believe him too be? Not that i am intentionally trying too change the subject, but unless he has quite the idea, he was talking at one time of doing what Mr. Bush hasn't dared to do, that is sending troops into Pakistan's northern territories! Now whether that is a good or bad idea is a debatable point worthy of it's own discussion? But if people think we are having troubles in the middle east now, then i can only imagine that taking the precarious position of invading an unsure, but old ally and one with nukes even... that it would unleash a new type of hell upon the world, that would no longer be containable within the middle eastern region?
Now, if he did such a thing, would i think that made him a stupid warmonger? Certainly not, he would be doing what he thought was strategically best for the country and it's allies! Though i do highly think that it would easily surpass the reasonably debatable points raised by the opposition regarding their idea's of the "invasion of Iraq as being the ultimate in the heigth of political stupidity"! Would you not agree to a certain extent?
Anyways, that is just one man's opinion. Besides that, if Obama wins the election and carries through on the previous mentioned unmentionable, then he and Bush would have atleast one thing in common, i know... they both acted on the best information available too them, with a very limited set of options on what to do about multitude of issues facing the US and it's allies. In such a scenario, people within the government would turn on him quicker than they turned on Bush, just too cover their own career's & political a$$e$! It's lonely at the top and it does make it questionable too me if Mr. Obama is even ready for the vile hatred that "will be" heaped upon him for every littel mistake? Now after i have said all that, does that sound like denial or does it sound like i am trying too keep my expectations based within the confines of reality?
It is clear he started an illegal war, not only here in the states, but also world wide by not adhering to the UN whom we use when it serves our purposes, but when not we cast aside.
I have grown too highly distrust the UN anymore as the arbiter of neutrality, justice & fairness! Now if they were too stop acting like a country club for the out-of-touch and corruptibly rich politico's out for themselves first & their own countries second, and start acting like the responsible stewards people used too expect of them, then maybe, just maybe.... i would feel a little better about that organisation, and perhaps... even start trusting in them again! Otherwise, that organisation has very little credibility with me!
I guess that is the conservative way out - look at O'Rilley and the other dimwit pundits - they attacked Britney Spear's sister for her teen pregnacy - called the parents pinheads, but lo and behold the last few weeks the same ones tell us that Palin's daughter made a choice (interestingly they never made the point in the previous news story that her sister also made the same). We can't have people run this country on such silly duality.
It makes no difference to me, if the tv pundits are not on the level, then i care very little for the opinions of those pundits who live in glass houses and yet... are the quickest too cast the first stone, whether their on the right, center or the left. It's still a shamefully immature position for a bunch of grown up adults too take!
Quasi-righteous indig huh? Sounds Austin poweresque. I'm thinking more about breaking my fast in a few hours instead vernacular impressions of a sceptic right now. My stomach would like a salad, few slices of bread, corn, beans, sausage, and various chocolates.
You may include me with the guilty ones in over dramatizing and spinning a few points across. However, unlike you I have a need to show the dark side of this woman. "Why is that?", one may ask. Oh, perhaps because she is about to possibly hold one of the most influencial positions in the world and that my little two cents is a form of education, specualtion and ventilation! That I would not feel comfortable keeping my mouth shut when I think someone of her caliber is contemplated for the vice presidency would be an understatement. In this case - ignorance is not bliss.
I do understand, as I noted earlier. I trust you will likewise understand if I generally do keep my mouth shut in these threads, and not read too much into it.
-Akolouthos
Of course I understand and will try to respect your expectations. Still, it's kinda fun getting all knotted up writing this stuff. Take care Ako. May we meet again in some other random thread...
May it be so.
By the way: I just reread my first post, and it sounded rather meaner than I had intended it to. I was going for quasi-righteous indignation, but it came off more as self-righteous anger. Glad you took no offense, as none was intended.
Too much blogging will make your head spin. My suggestion! Use AE as your source of inspiration and up-to-date news!
Heh... I do admit that i enjoy the more popular weblogs immensely, from reading their views, exploring their link to an article and making up my own mind and finally... to the readers interaction that is usally allowed in the comments section. Though their not my only source for news, they do give it a much higher degree of interaction that most news organisations dare not touch! AE does bring inspiration & up-to-date news, but you left out one important thing... for some darn reason, it is one of the more addictive forums on the web for historians & amateur's too keep coming to!
Also, as if I had to remind you, don't worry about everyones elses hearsay, especially the so-called professionals.
That's true. It doesn't hurt too remind me from time to time. I do tend to get carried away at times! But, then don't we all?
Blogs are a kick. AE can't be kicked.
..and yes we all get carried away. Maybe that's part of the spontaneous fun of this forum. The stuff that comes out of our minds when unfiltered...pure unadultrated fun. To top it off we even get to learn something new. Soccer scores, the latest in King Kang music, politics, intense Balkan competition, and our postings on the latest and greatest this and that!
You may include me with the guilty ones in over dramatizing and spinning a few points across. However, unlike you I have a need to show the dark side of this woman. "Why is that?", one may ask. Oh, perhaps because she is about to possibly hold one of the most influencial positions in the world and that my little two cents is a form of education, specualtion and ventilation! That I would not feel comfortable keeping my mouth shut when I think someone of her caliber is contemplated for the vice presidency would be an understatement. In this case - ignorance is not bliss.
I do understand, as I noted earlier. I trust you will likewise understand if I generally do keep my mouth shut in these threads, and not read too much into it.
-Akolouthos
Of course I understand and will try to respect your expectations. Still, it's kinda fun getting all knotted up writing this stuff. Take care Ako. May we meet again in some other random thread...
Too much blogging will make your head spin. My suggestion! Use AE as your source of inspiration and up-to-date news!
Heh... I do admit that i enjoy the more popular weblogs immensely, from reading their views, exploring their link to an article and making up my own mind and finally... to the readers interaction that is usally allowed in the comments section. Though their not my only source for news, they do give it a much higher degree of interaction that most news organisations dare not touch! AE does bring inspiration & up-to-date news, but you left out one important thing... for some darn reason, it is one of the more addictive forums on the web for historians & amateur's too keep coming to!
Also, as if I had to remind you, don't worry about everyones elses hearsay, especially the so-called professionals.
That's true. It doesn't hurt too remind me from time to time. I do tend to get carried away at times! But, then don't we all?
You may include me with the guilty ones in over dramatizing and spinning a few points across. However, unlike you I have a need to show the dark side of this woman. "Why is that?", one may ask. Oh, perhaps because she is about to possibly hold one of the most influencial positions in the world and that my little two cents is a form of education, specualtion and ventilation! That I would not feel comfortable keeping my mouth shut when I think someone of her caliber is contemplated for the vice presidency would be an understatement. In this case - ignorance is not bliss.
I do understand, as I noted earlier. I trust you will likewise understand if I generally do keep my mouth shut in these threads, and not read too much into it.
i rarely care to tell people what foreign leader i support, and whom they should elect as to lead their country!
If the American President did not go around bombing countries, nobody would have cared who you elect.
Not so! People from other countries have been interested in influencing or concerned about US Presidential elections atleast going back before the days just prior to WW 2. Of course it is not just a phenomenon unique for the US, it is just in man's nature too try and control what isn't currently in his control!
As far as i am concerned Bush may be a spend thrift, but i certainly do not think he is a warmonger!
Are you for real or trolling us?
[/quote]
Yes, those are my opinions, and no i'm not interrested in stirring up people just for the heck of it. What you read, is what i am in real life. I think that is reasonably fair, given the relative anonymity of the web!
Of course they all like pork. And pork eating states love it too. I am sure that Alaskans are quite happy with her being a pork champion. Just don't try to lie to my face about it.
All politicians lie......Oh, sorry....you already know that.
Of course they all like pork. And pork eating states love it too. I am sure that Alaskans are quite happy with her being a pork champion. Just don't try to lie to my face about it.
All politicians love pork. It is the only evidence they have that they have earned their pay. Once one is elected, at least to Congress, the only end game is being re-elected. To do that, pork is as essential as "political contributions."
Who is to blame? The politician or the constituents who expect all the pork fat?
Wait a second, I thought she shot down the "Bridge to Nowhere" project because the state could not afford such wasteful spending and she did not want to take a large handout from the federal government? So in reality, she disagreed with her big-spending, ear-marking "Republican" colleagues and the project bid failed on her watch.
Oh, you are wrong. Palin was all into the bridge to nowhere. She only "oppossed" it when it failed.
And Palin was soooo into pork, that she hired Washington lobbyists to bring more pork to Alaska. In fact, Alaska is one of the biggest pork receivers of the whole country.
But as a small-town mayor and a governor Palin did not hesitate to embrace the federal earmark process, according to a Washington Post report by Paul Kane that shows Palin helped secure almost $27 million in projects for her tiny hometown of Wasilla, Alaska.
Palin, who was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, directed the town (which then had a population under 7,000) to hire the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh (The New York Times notes that earmarks are "close to sacrosanct" in Alaska).
And during Palin's tenure as governor, Alaska requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in next year's federal budget, The Los Angeles Times reports, citing the Web site of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Just because she believes in the exclusivity of Christianity because it is her faith she is a bigot? Where does it say that one has to believe in the universality of all religions in order to become President/VP
B.E. you wrote a long post and now I have to read all of it and give you a response of equal measure.
First off, I believe that she is a bigot for her closed mindedness and partiality. When in a position of power, if not used right, she can be dangerous.
Definition of a bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Can we agree, that what we know of her so far fits the bill?
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
I am sure there are a few Congresspeople who would like to exclude Christianity from the group of "acceptable" religions that they have concocted based on comments they have made in the past. Are they deserving of the same label?
Yes, I strongly believe they also fall under the same label.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
The same people who are trashing Palin in a sudden epiphany of moral rectitude saying "If she stands for abstinence, how could she have allowed her daughter to have pre-marital sex and become pregnant" and "do conservatives suddenly agree with this alternative family arrangement" would have gone out of their way to condemn her if it had instead been uncovered that she had been quite strict with her daughters concerning their freedoms while living under her roof. If this had happened, Palin would have been trashed as a domineering, Christian fundy nutcase. Oh wait, she is already being called that. Is this a double standard?
You said it, not me. Also you're getting ahead of yourelf. Most of all I am somewhat concerned because of the lack of vocalization that... no Republican uproar has highlighted the obvious and most glaring contradiction to family values. It doesn't take a liberal to tell a republican to abstain and shout: "Say no to premarital sex!". This judegment in one of character. Not total control of a mother over her child but the moral values that a mother teaches and instills in her child.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Of course, Christian conservatives are not suddenly going to bactrack and redefine their positions on sexual morality just because Palin is supposedly a conservative and her daughter conceived out of wedlock. The important thing is how she and her family chose to deal with it.
Fine. I agree, that is 'now' the most important thing. However, I now believe, even more so than before, that conservatives play fast with their belief system and loose with their morals! Not that I care to judge. I could care less. However, I certainly will call out the diminished adherance to certain family values.
Originally posted by Seko
- She isn't green. Wants drilling the Alaska's wildlife Refuge, which her boss, McCain, opposes
- She could care less about polar bears as she opposed a bill making them a threatened (protected) species.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
The former shows that she is more conservative than McCain on using the resources we have in the country already in an effort to achieve "energy independence." What does the latter have to do with any of the real issues that face the country? Why bring it up? Just because I ask this don't think that I don't care about polar bears or endangered species.
I bring it up because I thought it as worthy news to slam Palin with actually. I find it not that difficult to discover fodder for my little endeavor by the way! The news is right there in front of my face. I can't hold myself.
To answer my point that you highlighted, I find it necessasry to mention because her lack of regard for the environment is now a social issue that appears to have important consequenses for us all. I am all for independence of energy. What are her alternatives, and McCain's to offshore drilling or tearing up the environment and killing a few animals in the process. I'm not a big tree hugger but I am not naive either. McCain's energy policy is all politics. Offshore drilling is happening as we speak. Leases are either available or running up for the Oil companies. Drilling in new coastal regions is not necessary. Plus we would not see the fruits of that labot till many years to come and that is after the infrastructure is built. And, according to specualtion, 2-6 percent gain in oil production.
Originally posted by Seko
Back when she was mayor of a small town called Wasilla, Alaska she had shown her meddle in the 'Librarian' incident. Palin and her cohorts (conservative Pentecostals at the time) told the town librarian to remove certain books from the shelves. "Go Ask Alice" and "Pastor, I am Gay". The librarian refused and felt they were controlling her and their request was a form of censorship. The librarian reminded Palin that books were purchased in accordance to national standards and professional guidelines and would not allow their removal. Palin fired that brave librarian. The community was in an uproar and the librarian was reinstated. She only lasted another two years as she found it difficult to work under Palin's thumb.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Reading beyond the smearing headlines, it was later found out that the librarian could not even remember specific titles that Palin supposedly said should be removed. The "list" that was circulated by the media smear squad was proven to be a phony as it had books that had not even been published at the time this incident supposedly occurred. It was an amalgamated list of books that had been banned in other places over the past century which the media tried to say Palin created. The original context of the question, to which our valiant librarian objected, was "what is the process for banning a book and what would you do if people were picketing the library."
The question was, "what is the process for banning a book and what would you do if people were picketing the library". I read that also. However, it didn't end there did it? The librarian lost her job. The town wanted her to have it back and Palin was behind the pressure to censure books. Whether the source I used got the names of the books right or wrong is important but not as important as the result.
Originally posted by Seko
Palin agrees with US militarism. Though she calls herself non-denominational, she still views Islam as being a false religion. How grande! Who is to judge? Pentecostals of course thrown in with the occasional Catholic.
On Iraq Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war.
"Many times you hear it referred to as a kind of diabolical religion, and that comes from the idea of Christianity being the true religion, but also their support for Israel, because they contend that Israel [represents] God's chosen people and you dare not touch them.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Well, technically, she is non-denominational. She left the "super right wing whacko fundy" Pentacostal church six years ago. I'd like to point out that quote from the NPR article is not from Palin herself but from a Pentacostal academic who was consulted for the story.
So Palin believes her own Christian faith is true and Islam is false. So what? What about the people who hold elected office who believe all religions are false and characterize it in the same negative language?
Yes, the quotes speak about her in the NPR link and are not from her. However, there are numerous film footage and articles with Palin herself saying the that. I watched just yesterday in the news of the recent interivew with Gibson that she invoked righteousness that our troops are serving God's purpose in Iraq then she backstepped and said Abe Lincoln said the same thing in context of his time.
Her, or anyone elses, religion is none of my business when held in private. The minute she publically manipulates and portrays God as an ally to her political leanings then there is no difference between her and the leader of Iran. They both think that God is on their side and then use that message for secondary gains such as fincancial funding or the destruction of others.
Originally posted by Seko
- Palin is not a fiscal conservative. She is a spend thrift. Alaska being one of the richest states in the union, Palin sought funds for the 'bridge to nowhere' and a 30 billion dollar pipeline. Her biggest boosters are big oil. Hows that for anti-lobby crusading? Entering as mayor she had a balanced budget. She left the town $20 million in debt.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Wait a second, I thought she shot down the "Bridge to Nowhere" project because the state could not afford such wasteful spending and she did not want to take a large handout from the federal government? So in reality, she disagreed with her big-spending, ear-marking "Republican" colleagues and the project bid failed on her watch.
Not excatluy. That was after the fact. She pushed for it til it looked politically unstable and that congress would not fork over the funds.
She ditched the "bridge to nowehre" - an airport link in some far off place because it gained notoriety as an example of wasteful spending. She said that it was clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Thus the federal funding was diverted to other Alsakan projects deemed more worthy.
Therefore, I like the fact that Palin seems to be standing for some core conservative principles: pro-life (yes, her daughter made the right decision, call me a hypocrite if you want),
If you disapprove of her (and her mother) getting pregnant extra-maritally but think she was then right to have the baby, that's not hypocritical.
But what does it say for the Palins' sense of 'family values'?
It is very clear what it says: Palin is a wretch of a mother. As soon as the child is breathing, she neglects them, as it was obvious that she neglected her daughter and now we see how she is neglecting her new born baby.
Is this how a conservative, family values mother is supposed to behave?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum