Support NeoGAF

[Bending_Unit_22]

Small? 10 billion a month says otherwise.

We wouldn't be concerned about being stretched thin if we could have avoid the unnecessary war in Iraq.

$10 billion a month is pocket change to a $14 trillion economy. Vietnam in today's terms cost nearly $100 billion per month, Korea even more, and WW2 weighs in at a whopping $600 billion per month. Iraq is little more than a brushfire war in historic terms.

 

[kevm3]

First, sorry if I can't get to everyone. GAF is clearly an unrepresentative sample of the population but I'm working as hard as I can .

Foreign Policy- She mentioned Russia's invasion of Georgia, why that's important to our energy, and seeing Iraq through to victory. She also mentioned Obama bumpling responses to the Georgia situation until he eventually just xeroxed the statement McCain mentioned on day 1 and affixed his name to it. I agree she and McCain need to talk about it more (though thus far they are more coherent than anything Obama has said) and I am a foreign hawk, but I like what I've seen thus far.

Energy- We are simply not getting off oil anytime soon no matter how much Obama indicates he'll wish for it. She wants to drill, expand pipelines, build more nuclear power, and begin moving into renewable energy. As Europe is discovering riught now, you cannot expand your economy and people's income if you limit energy. We are a growing nation and need more energy every year and most much come from oil and coal, its a simple fact. Again as I noted I don't think she went far enough.

Econonmy- Tax cuts and reduced spending are about what the federal government needs to do and get out of the way of the private economy. I know the dems and media paint a dickensian picture of a down and out America with the worst economy since the depression but the reality is the economy is not in that bad of shape. GDP growth was 3.3% last quarter, median incomes hit their highest levels ever last year, and people's satisfaction with their own lives is as high as ever (as usual people almost always imagine things for others to be worse than what they see in their lives). There are definite issues, many caused by the federal government (including Bush unfortunately), but nothing the market won't work out on its own.

Education- That's a matter for the states for the most part. I'm not sure what she thinks but I don't care, I think the feds spend too much on education as it is.

So how about when Obama suggested we attack Taliban targets in Pakistan even if the Pakistani government doesn't assist us? Bush followed that line of advice and saw it was successful.

How about the timetable in Iraq that Obama suggested? Now, Bush is in talks to set up a timetable after being sketchy on the issue.

It was Palin herself who said she had no real opinion on the Iraq war. So how is she going to suddenly craft a solid intellectual framework on it after virtually ignoring it?

Also, what is "victory in Iraq?" Before we can say we were victorious, we have to decide what objectives need to be completed in order to be victorious.

If you are a foreign hawk, why isn't the Obama campaign more appealing to you, especially with a VP with a ton of experience at foreign policy?
http://biden.senate.gov/press/in_the_news/news/?id=da295ea8-7dff-4902-99d4-6eb880a6f79d



In regards to energy, Palin has gone record praising aspects of Obama's energy plan and what it will do for Alaska.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/alaska-gov-and-longshot-m_n_116974.html

Also, in regards to drilling, how long will it take before we can actually use the oil if we start searching and drilling now?

 

[numble]

Obama accomplished next to nothing as a community organizer and ran to the statehouse before he could see his apartment project was a terrible idea.

Elaborate. Please.

 

[Xenon]

Your cronies were laughing. They were laughing were you not watching.She chuckled too. Everyone was laughing get out of her man. I am sorry I wasnt literal enough for you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_-7rv-1gw <- this is truly despicable too. Keep laughing... Calling others elitists and saying crap like this.

My cronies... :lol. Read all my post in this thread before making such an ignorant comment. Maybe they were laughing because it was a great comeback for all the "small town mayor is not expirience" cracks that she was getting. If you seriously think they were laughing at community leaders I suggest you watch it again. This political theater, she landed a blow and her party reacted.

Unlike you, I like Obama and Palin. So before you try to fit me in your "Us against them" world try to understand that some people might actually want to hear both sides.

 

[mozfan12]

This is truly despicable too. Keep laughing... Calling others elitists and saying crap like this. Like I am going to tell you this with a straight face. When I was watching that I was truly offended. Comments like this make it difficult for me to try to make it the engineering/business world. I am an african american male about to graduate with a degree in engineering 3.67 GPA and people still look at me like im here because of my color. Its this stupid elitist bs and making jokes like this that help support these beliefs. What he said there was so of base I have no idea what else to say about it. Defend that shit. He was laughing too so don't say oh the opportunities. No hes saying it in a demeaning way. Ive felt the racial tension and bigotry in the world have you. I doubt it. Keep supporting your little false idols. I don't care any more I am tired of you out of touch republicans. Spin this how you want. Im sure in the end I will be the one who mounted the attack. To say something like this to your bigot buddies at home is one thing but to put it on the tv for everyone to see and laugh at it another. Keep supporting stereotypes. I am sure your gonna say I am missing the point. If I missed the bus then you guys must be at the wrong damn bus stop because I am not crazy and I have what you guys can call "experience" in this area.

dude wtf, where those people laughing???

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

This keeps confusing me.. how exactly is the media destroying the girl? Every time I've seen it mentioned it has been in relation to Palin sex ed policies, no one is calling the girl out for doing anything wrong.

3 front page stories on the NYT? Tracking down the fathers mother to ask if the Palins pressured him into marrying her? And Yes the grotesque linking of it to policies which have little to no bearing on the case and despite a 1 person sample always being worthless. Anyways, I'll go along with Arde and stop responding to the issue.

 

[MThanded]

Every speech I heard today sounded elitist just on another note. Pot calling the kettle black it may seem

 

[ComputerNerd]

So your point is that if we didn't have two wars, we wouldn't have this problem now?

My point is we should be able to fight two small wars without stretching our military thin.

If our military was larger, than when we invaded Iraq, we'd have been able to occupy the cities as we take them, instead of take over one city, move on to the next, rinse and repeat. We had to leave cities totally unprotected, because we didn't have the forces to protect them. Then the insurgency started because we didn't have enough men to protect the populace.

In another perspective, let's take those two wars out of the equation. We are now idle, fighting no wars. Then a large war breaks out that we're forced into. We wouldn't have the manpower to be successful.

 

[M3wThr33]

So how about when Obama suggested we attack Taliban targets in Pakistan even if the Pakistani government doesn't assist us? Bush followed that line of advice and saw it was successful.

How about the timetable in Iraq that Obama suggested? Now, Bush is in talks to set up a timetable after being sketchy on the issue.

It was Palin herself who said she had no real opinion on the Iraq war. So how is she going to suddenly craft a solid intellectual framework on it after virtually ignoring it?

Also, what is "victory in Iraq?" Before we can say we were victorious, we have to decide what objectives need to be completed in order to be victorious.

If you are a foreign hawk, why isn't the Obama campaign more appealing to you, especially with a VP with a ton of experience at foreign policy?
http://biden.senate.gov/press/in_the_news/news/?id=da295ea8-7dff-4902-99d4-6eb880a6f79d



In regards to energy, Palin has gone record praising aspects of Obama's energy plan and what it will do for Alaska.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/alaska-gov-and-longshot-m_n_116974.html

Also, in regards to drilling, how long will it take before we can actually use the oil if we start searching and drilling now?

We must be close to Iraq victory. Bush said Mission Accomplished years ago.

 

[JCreasy]

The fact that Obama used being a community organizer to buttress his case for being president while belittling Palin as just some small town mayor. He wants to make the case that forgoing a wall street job (which is not entirely true, but anyways) and doing community organizer gives him experience to be president while saying a small town mayor has zero experience then yes expect the republicans to point out that a small town mayor had actual responsability and accountability. Obama accomplished next to nothing as a community organizer and ran to the statehouse before he could see his apartment project was a terrible idea. That is a bit different than be elected and then reelected mayor. That is what the republicans are attacking, not community organizers (but yes the speech was so magnificent the dems are left with mere straws to grasp).

Umm, you call leaving Wasilla 20 million dollars in debt being held to account? Running up the tap on earmarks, earmarks McCain actually slammed earlier in his career . . . you call that being held to account?

Yes, graspnig at straws we are, obviously.

 

[slidewinder]

I hate to break it to him, but ordinary people outside of major cities hadn't heard of community organizers until Obama ran for president. That's what's out of touch.

I hope you didn't get banned for this, because that's very much true. The notion of someone being paid specifically to come in from the outside and help a community get its collective prospects together is absolutely foreign to very many people in this country. And, furthermore, the particular TITLE of 'community organizer' is something that people from rural areas could've easily never (pre-Barack) run across without catching the occasional incidental mention deep in the nearest city's newspapers.

While there are often people and charities who serve the same functions piecemeal, in small and rural towns, for obvious reasons, there mostly aren't dedicated, full-time jobbers of the sort that Obama was in Chicago. If there are some that could be said to be, they'd be called 'pastors' or 'ministers' in most places. Oh, look at that.

That the phrase 'community organizer' has those labor harmonics to it just muddles things up even more.

 

[ronito]

First, sorry if I can't get to everyone. GAF is clearly an unrepresentative sample of the population but I'm working as hard as I can .

Foreign Policy- She mentioned Russia's invasion of Georgia, why that's important to our energy, and seeing Iraq through to victory. She also mentioned Obama bumpling responses to the Georgia situation until he eventually just xeroxed the statement McCain mentioned on day 1 and affixed his name to it. I agree she and McCain need to talk about it more (though thus far they are more coherent than anything Obama has said) and I am a foreign hawk, but I like what I've seen thus far.

Look if the republicans are going to take an "I told you so stance" they'll lose that against Obama. Especially when it comes to Iran. He's been talking about it for months and now even the Bush admin is coming around. If they play this card they have a lot more coming back at them.

As for being more coherent, carrying a big stick isn't coherence. I realize you're a hawk but hawks get killed by other hawks.

Energy- We are simply not getting off oil anytime soon no matter how much Obama indicates he'll wish for it. She wants to drill, expand pipelines, build more nuclear power, and begin moving into renewable energy. As Europe is discovering riught now, you cannot expand your economy and people's income if you limit energy. We are a growing nation and need more energy every year and most much come from oil and coal, its a simple fact. Again as I noted I don't think she went far enough.

And who's going to pay for all that? I mean come on. We get all this talk about "democrats will spend your money!" and "big government"! Oil drilling will not help within 10 years. Sure it will help to buy you uninformed votes, but not much until that time is up. Fact is you don't give a fat a kid a candy bar and a stick of celery then complain when he continues to gain weight. Funny you bring up Europe. Some of those countries are oil independent. Do you know how they did it? I'll give you a hint...they didn't drill for more oil. Obama has a very well outlined energy policy that not only states the goals but how to get there. Here we just have more fear and smear. Drill baby drill! Is not a strategy to get out of the energy hole.

Econonmy- Tax cuts and reduced spending are about what the federal government needs to do and get out of the way of the private economy. I know the dems and media paint a dickensian picture of a down and out America with the worst economy since the depression but the reality is the economy is not in that bad of shape. GDP growth was 3.3% last quarter, median incomes hit their highest levels ever last year, and people's satisfaction with their own lives is as high as ever (as usual people almost always imagine things for others to be worse than what they see in their lives). There are definite issues, many caused by the federal government (including Bush unfortunately), but nothing the market won't work out on its own.

Democrats paint a dickensian picture because that's the picture they see when they walk down the streets. If republican spent more time BEING community organizers instead of putting them down they'd see this. Also it's been said a hundred times Obama will cut taxes for 80-90% of families and yes he will raise taxes on capital gains. For my thoughts on this see my post about my friend who moves stock around and makes money doing it. Let us not forget either that republicans have a FAR WORSE fiscal record than any democrat. They are in NO position to chide dems over that.

Education- That's a matter for the states for the most part. I'm not sure what she thinks but I don't care, I think the feds spend too much on education as it is.

As Obama has said if we are out educated today we'll be out performed tomorrow. I do not see how it can be thought that we can skimp on our education yet expect the best jobs to remain here. That's like selling all your cooking equipment and trying to cook an eight course meal.

 

[polyh3dron]

Umm, you call leaving Wasilla 20 million dollars in debt being held to account? Running up the tap on earmarks, earmarks McCain actually slammed earlier in his career . . . you call that being held to account?

Yes, graspnig at straws we are, obviously.

Blaming Palin for leaving Wasilla $20 mil in debt after securing the largest amount of money in earmarks per capita of any city in the whole country is SEXIST

I BLAME TEH LIBRUL MEDIA

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Every speech I heard today sounded elitist just on another note. Pot calling the kettle black it may seem

Well they are the political party of the rich white male.

 

[ronito]

$10 billion a month is pocket change to a $14 trillion economy. Vietnam in today's terms cost nearly $100 billion per month, Korea even more, and WW2 weighs in at a whopping $600 billion per month. Iraq is little more than a brushfire war in historic terms.

$10 billion here, $10 billion there. Pretty soon you're talking real money.

 

[Slurpy]

You're trying to change the topic. The point was that Clinton left our military able to fight just one small war at any given time. That point still stands.

And yes, the Iraq war is a small war. 4500 dead is small in war terms. Granted, it's higher than we'd like and any life lost is tragic, but it could have been worse. The Vietnam war for example left 50,000 dead. The Korean War left 36K dead. WW 2? 416K. Civil War? 620K.

The fact that 40K service members in Afghanistan, and 130K service members in Iraq, is stretching our military thin, is a problem.

..Yeah, and you somehow tie that to Clinton. The mental leaps you have to make to support your statements is are patently absurd. There's no way in fucking hell CLinton could have or should have 'funded the military' to be able to handle the situation we are in how. The very suggestion if fucking insane.

 

[Trurl]

BabyGate is a Red Herring.
BabyGate is a Red Herring.
BabyGate is a Red Herring.
BabyGate is a Red Herring.

By God, you're right. It certainly is acting as one. Is it likely that the McCain camp released it so that it would become a red herring?

$10 billion a month is pocket change to a $14 trillion economy. Vietnam in today's terms cost nearly $100 billion per month, Korea even more, and WW2 weighs in at a whopping $600 billion per month. Iraq is little more than a brushfire war in historic terms.

Spoken like a true fiscal conservative.

 

[Arde5643]

$10 billion a month is pocket change to a $14 trillion economy. Vietnam in today's terms cost nearly $100 billion per month, Korea even more, and WW2 weighs in at a whopping $600 billion per month. Iraq is little more than a brushfire war in historic terms.

Are you suggesting that because the Iraq war is not as bad as the Vietnam war, Korean war, and WW2 war, that it doesn't really affect Americans?

In historic terms, the Iraq war is more infamous notoriously not due to its economic effects, but by the nature that this is the very first pre-emptive war the US has done, the first time that the modern US government has condone torture, and other bills/passages that restrict civil liberties.

And also, do not forget, that in the Iraq "war", we've lost tens and thousands of men in our peace-keeping process than the actual war itself.

 

[JCreasy]

By God, you're right. It certainly is acting as one. Is it likely that the McCain camp released it so that it would become a red herring?

Now you're clickin'

 

[masud]

The fact that Obama used being a community organizer to buttress his case for being president...

Dude Obama used being a community activist (and Harvard educated lawyer) to buttress his case for the Illinois senate, that was years ago. Palin was the Mayor of Wasila 18 months ago...

 

[Thunder Monkey]

By God, you're right. It certainly is acting as one. Is it likely that the McCain camp released it so that it would become a red herring?

Good chance.

The media loves a good sex scandal, and featuring an underage girl is like the jackpot to them.

 

[polyh3dron]

By God, you're right. It certainly is acting as one. Is it likely that the McCain camp released it so that it would become a red herring?

I think they released it because it was going to come out anyways if they didn't, but that's obviously what they're using it as.

 

[maynerd]

$10 billion here, $10 billion there. Pretty soon you're talking real money.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

 

[ComputerNerd]

Small? 10 billion a month says otherwise.

We wouldn't be concerned about being stretched thin if we could have avoid the unnecessary war in Iraq.

That's all we're really capable of at this point. Blowing the fuck out of shit. Doesn't negate the fact that we need more men in boots. Blowing up shit works great against a standing army, or in the initial stages of a war where you're concentrating on military installations. Doesn't work that well against an insurgency, or securing a population. That's when boots are needed.

 

[JCreasy]

I goin to bed ya'll, goodnight.

Keep up the fight. I'll join you at work in the morning.

 

[Arde5643]

$10 billion a month is pocket change to a $14 trillion economy. Vietnam in today's terms cost nearly $100 billion per month, Korea even more, and WW2 weighs in at a whopping $600 billion per month. Iraq is little more than a brushfire war in historic terms.

I think this post deserves a tag.

 

[JaY P.]

You're trying to change the topic. The point was that Clinton left our military able to fight just one small war at any given time. That point still stands.

And yes, the Iraq war is a small war. 4500 dead is small in war terms. Granted, it's higher than we'd like and any life lost is tragic, but it could have been worse. The Vietnam war for example left 50,000 dead. The Korean War left 36K dead. WW 2? 416K. Civil War? 620K.

The fact that 40K service members in Afghanistan, and 130K service members in Iraq, is stretching our military thin, is a problem.

To be fair on Clinton's end he took office at the end of the Cold War. That coupled with the fact that the nation was in massive debt it only made sense to reduce the military. Standing armies are expensive to maintain for any nation even the US.

As for Iraq, yes I agree that it was a small conflict compared to the other wars. But, did we really need to go in there in the first place?

On another note, given the fact that combat/war has evolved we could use our tax dollars more wisely by spending less on old "industrialized" war ideas and retooling the military to suit 21st century warfare. After all we can't just carpet bomb a whole country for 10% of their population we don't agree with.

 

[Slurpy]

My point is we should be able to fight two small wars without stretching our military thin.

If our military was larger, than when we invaded Iraq, we'd have been able to occupy the cities as we take them, instead of take over one city, move on to the next, rinse and repeat. We had to leave cities totally unprotected, because we didn't have the forces to protect them. Then the insurgency started because we didn't have enough men to protect the populace.

In another perspective, let's take those two wars out of the equation. We are now idle, fighting no wars. Then a large war breaks out that we're forced into. We wouldn't have the manpower to be successful.

You right wing chickenhawks are amazing. Not only do you blame Clinton for 9/11, you also blame him for the failures of the Iraq war. How fucking quaint. Takes the term 'passing the buck' to a whole new level.

 

[masud]

In another perspective, let's take those two wars out of the equation. We are now idle, fighting no wars. Then a large war breaks out that we're forced into. We wouldn't have the manpower to be successful.

Dude we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined.

 

[polyh3dron]

Are you suggesting that because the Iraq war is not as bad as the Vietnam war, Korean war, and WW2 war, that it doesn't really affect Americans?

In historic terms, the Iraq war is more infamous notoriously not due to its economic effects, but by the nature that this is the very first pre-emptive war the US has done, the first time that the modern US government has condone torture, and other bills/passages that restrict civil liberties.

And also, do not forget, that in the Iraq "war", we've lost tens and thousands of men in our peace-keeping process than the actual war itself.

In the 21st century, countries don't invade other countries.

 

[soul creator]

haha, this is pretty funny if true

ST. PAUL -- The Teleprompter scrolling through Sarah Palin's speech -- and the text released to the press -- contained a helpful phonetic guide for the Republican candidate on energy policy: "build more new-clear plants."

 

[polyh3dron]

You right wing chickenhawks are amazing. Not only do you blame Clinton for 9/11, you also blame him for the failures of the Iraq war. How fucking quaint.

Not only that, they credit Reagan with the economic boom of the 90s as well as the Federal Budget Surplus.

haha, this is pretty funny if true

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[speculawyer]

Republicans Defend Palin's Earmark History, Say She's Changed

Oh . . . she's changed. Flip-flopped is the term they usually use. Hmm . . . why didn't they use that term here?

BTW . . . why this story of 'change' now? Why didn't they just tell us the truth to begin with? Why the lies?

Oh that's right . . . lie first, then make up something later if the lies don't work. Sounds like the all the rationalizations we heard for the Iraq war.

Change . . . . change the lies with new shit when the truth comes out.

Republicans Defend Palin's Earmark History, Say She's Changed

By Kathleen Hunter, CQ Staff Wed Sep 3, 8:52 PM ET
Leaders of the congressional Republican campaign against parochial pet projects in spending bills joined the party's aggressive campaign to promote the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin on Wednesday, labelling the Alaska governor a "reformed earmarker," who could be trusted to help trim wasteful spending from federal budgets.

"When it comes to earmarks, McCain-Palin is a reformer's dream and a pork-barreler's nightmare," Rep. Jeb Hansarling of Texas said at a hastily-arranged news conference.

"There's one person in this race who's actually vetoed earmarks, and her name is Gov. Sarah Palin," said Hensarling, who chairs the Republican Study Commission, a group of fiscally conservative House members.

As an Arizona senator for two decades, McCain has lambasted colleagues in both parties with equal fervor for their pursuit of line-items in appropriations bills that commit slivers of the federal budget to public works back home, some of them with little evident merit. As president, he has said, he would have no hesitation to veto spending bills with such earmarks. "John McCain was fighting wasteful government spending before fighting wasteful government spending was cool," said Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona.

The news conference was arranged to tamp down any worries in fiscally conservative circles about Palin, who's commitment to budget discipline has come under scrutiny in the week since she was tapped by McCain for the No. 2 spot on the ticket.

When her nomination was announced Aug. 29, Palin declared that she had "told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere" -- a reference to the nearly $400 million appropriation for a bridge project to connect an island of 50 people to the mainland in Alaska, which became the focus of national ridicule and prompted a renewed congressional soul-searching about the propriety of earmarks. But, in fact, Palin supported the project as a candidate for governor and only turned against it after she took office, by which point it was no longer politically viable.

In addition, Palin sought millions of dollars worth of federal earmarks when she was mayor of Wasilla, and had that city of 7,000 hire a lobbyist to go after the federal funds, and as recently as this February requested almost $200 million worth of new funding for Alaska projects, according to The Washington Post.

Republican lawmakers asserted that Palin, like so many other Republicans in public office, had seen the flaws in the earmark process and come around to supporting a moratorium -- a policy change that several dubbed courageous.

"All of us here, I think, would consider ourselves recovering earmarkers," said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the chief deputy GOP whip in the House.

The Republican lawmakers pointed out that the 2008 GOP platform, which delegates adopted Monday, called for "an immediate moratorium on the earmarking system" until the appropriations process could be reformed "through full transparency."

"In picking Gov. Palin, Sen. McCain has said he is going to take on the Washington establishment," said Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. "He is going to fight the status quo whether it be in the Republican Party or in the Democratic Party."

But Democrats slammed Palin as a slick politician and questioned McCain's judgement in picking someone who had so short a public resume.

"You can praise her as someone who played the inside Washington game well, but you cannot present her as someone who is a reformer on earmarks," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the chairman of the party's House campaign operation, who's in St. Paul this week to offer the party's spin on the convention. "The facts just tell a different story . . . What we're seeing here is the consequences of a rush to judgement and a rash decision by John McCain. I think it tells you an awful lot about the way he makes decisions on the fly."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/politics2943925

<insert fiscalconservativecartoon.jpg>

 

[tfur]

My point is we should be able to fight two small wars without stretching our military thin.

If our military was larger, than when we invaded Iraq, we'd have been able to occupy the cities as we take them, instead of take over one city, move on to the next, rinse and repeat. We had to leave cities totally unprotected, because we didn't have the forces to protect them. Then the insurgency started because we didn't have enough men to protect the populace.

In another perspective, let's take those two wars out of the equation. We are now idle, fighting no wars. Then a large war breaks out that we're forced into. We wouldn't have the manpower to be successful.

Um yeah... You might want to research what you are talking about...

The military technique you describe was a product of the Bush war plan. His father did the first invasion correctly with 500,000+ troops... and this only to push back the enemy in desert storm.

Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld decided on the technique for small force vs insurgency... these are facts... Generals were FIRED for suggesting that they should have more troops on the ground...

 

[mozfan12]

The thing is when you bring this sex scandal to republicans, they say as its nothing, and that its proof of Palins pro life ambitions. But you know what, its time for revegge bitches, for what happend in the MonicaLewinsky-gate. Let the NYT use it to their advantage, if you guys used it to the verge of impeaching what I call one of the greatest American presidents, than Im all for a little mudslinging, which is not mudslinging. Hey if she can't take care of her daughter than she probably can't take care of a country.

 

[M3wThr33]

haha, this is pretty funny if true

No. NO. NOOO. :lol

 

[polyh3dron]

Republicans Defend Palin's Earmark History, Say She's Changed

Holy shit, they're acting like the Bush Administration even before being elected. Didn't they get the memo that they have to be Compassionate Conservatives right now?

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

So how about when Obama suggested we attack Taliban targets in Pakistan even if the Pakistani government doesn't assist us? Bush followed that line of advice and saw it was successful.

How about the timetable in Iraq that Obama suggested? Now, Bush is in talks to set up a timetable after being sketchy on the issue.

It was Palin herself who said she had no real opinion on the Iraq war. So how is she going to suddenly craft a solid intellectual framework on it after virtually ignoring it?

Also, what is "victory in Iraq?" Before we can say we were victorious, we have to decide what objectives need to be completed in order to be victorious.

If you are a foreign hawk, why isn't the Obama campaign more appealing to you, especially with a VP with a ton of experience at foreign policy?
http://biden.senate.gov/press/in_the_news/news/?id=da295ea8-7dff-4902-99d4-6eb880a6f79d

In regards to energy, Palin has gone record praising aspects of Obama's energy plan and what it will do for Alaska.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/alaska-gov-and-longshot-m_n_116974.html

Also, in regards to drilling, how long will it take before we can actually use the oil if we start searching and drilling now?

I can't tell from his speech, but either Obama was referring to more than small attacks in Pakistan or referring to what we've been doing since 2002, attacking high value targets in Pakistan as we indentify them. If Obama meant the second then, big deal, what other Bush policy does he want to agree with? If he meant more than small attacks then he is dangerously out of his league as president. One of the reasons we invaded Iraq was because it was a country we could invade and occupy, Pakistan is not. It is simply too big and has nuclear weapons. Of course he may not mean invade Pakistan but if we launched a large raid into Pakistan then the Pakistanis might not give us the choice.

There are different kinds of timetables, those based on hard dates and those based on objectives. We will pull out of Iraq when it is stable and can manage its own affairs is a good timetable. We will pull out of Iraq in May 2008 come what may is a bad timetable.

I would imagine Palin will come up to speed on Iraq, assuming she needs to, the same way Obama did, but talking to advisors and experts. Obama has a head start on that, though given his advisors it doesn't help his case with me, but Palin has time before inaugaration day. Again she isn't president from Day 1, Obama is.

As far as I know the objectives in Iraq are to leave a stable multi-ethnic at least quasi-democracy in the heart of the Middle East. I'd say we are well on our way to acheiving that.

Can't stand Biden and never have (and yes I've been aware of him for about 10 years). He has the worst kind of dovish transnational foreign policy views.

I'm not going to bother with the Huffington Post as a source, but what's wrong with a governor supporting a plan that helps her state? She's doing what's best for her state after all.

It'll take a few years to get oil assuming lawsuits by environmentalists can be held in check. Even so, the very prospect of us starting to drill for oil is taking the air out of the speculative bubble. So the price of oil will come down quickly once the actual drilling is announced.

 

[speculawyer]

My point is we should be able to fight two small wars without stretching our military thin.

AND CUT TAXES TOO! . . . . WEEEEE! . . . . . IT'S NEO-CON FANTASY-LAND!

LETS JUST GET RID OF TAXES AND HAVE MOAR WARZ! WEEEE!

 

[Guts Of Thor]

Republicans Defend Palin's Earmark History, Say She's Changed

Oh . . . she's changed. Flip-flopped is the term they usually use. Hmm . . . why didn't they use that term here?

BTW . . . why this story of 'change' now? Why didn't they just tell us the truth to begin with? Why the lies?

Oh that's right . . . lie first, then make up something later if the lies don't work. Sounds like the all the rationalizations we heard for the Iraq war.

Change . . . . change the lies with new shit when the truth comes out.

Just simply pathetic....

 

[bafflewaffle]

this thread moves too damn fast.

 

[polyh3dron]

Can't stand Biden and never have (and yes I've been aware of him for about 10 years). He has the worst kind of dovish transnational foreign policy views.

Please elaborate.

 

[MThanded]

this thread moves too damn fast.

Agreed I posted some food for thought and i think only one person saw it lol. Everybody I have and idea lets not feed the trolls. Let them be. They will dissapear.

Also this thread will go down in history. I am happy to be a part of it and fight the good fight. Was able to give king_slander a new tag. Sort of sad I did not get one for sitting him down though :lol

 

[ComputerNerd]

..Yeah, and you somehow tie that to Clinton. The mental leaps you have to make to support your statements is are patently absurd. There's no way in fucking hell CLinton could have or should have 'funded the military' to be able to handle the situation we are in how. The very suggestion if fucking insane.

Do you have any idea what happened to the military during Clinton's years? It was gutted.

What it sounds like you're saying is the military shouldn't be funded to be able to fight a war.

And the situation we're in now, historically, is quite small. So Clinton shouldn't have funded the military to handle historically small wars. Right.

 

[masud]

Stop talking about fucking baby-gate! Argh!

 

[mozfan12]

it moves too damn fast but eh, people got lots to say, most of which is pretty interesting especially the guy with the ye' avatar.

 

[polyh3dron]

No. NO. NOOO. :lol

I take it you missed her say NOOKULAR last Friday.

Sarah Palin says Nookular.

That's not change, that's MORE OF THE SAME.

 

[Slurpy]

...labelling the Alaska governor a "reformed earmarker," who could be trusted to help trim wasteful spending from federal budgets.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Just put this damn party out of it's misery. Now.

 

[ronito]

I'm not going to bother with the Huffington Post as a source, but what's wrong with a governor supporting a plan that helps her state? She's doing what's best for her state after all.

Well that'd be nothing. Unless if after that you get up on stage in front of thousands of people and millions of TV viewers then proceed to claim that your opponent is for big government and you are for less spending.

Such a move might be considered, oh I don't know, dishonest, hypocritical, pandering, stealth editing.

 

[speculawyer]

but what's wrong with a governor supporting a plan that helps her state? She's doing what's best for her state after all.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Do you guys realize how funny you are? :lol