Another Homerun for Palin!

[Vic]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp
Grandpa McCain got one foot in the grave, do you really want her leading the free world?

Wimp Obama has no backbone you really want Pelosi running the free world? I will play the odds that mccain lives most of his term vs Obama growning a back bone.

Evidence of said missing backbone?

When has he stood up to his party? Obama is a classic puppet he won't take any sort of stand he lets others do that.

Yeah, just ask the liberal Dems and Pelosi what they think about Obama's vote for FISA!!

Oh, wait...

Wow he made his anual token vote against his party. Give me a call when he joins the other side to author some bills.

Didn't you just say that he has never and would never stand up to his party? I give just one example and you claim it was token? Gotta love dishonesty...

:roll:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
McCain already reinforced it. He is quoted knowing what we know now he would go into Iraq again. That war was a preemtive strike...aka Bush Doctrine

Is there a video of this available? If so, that's the kind of stuff we need to see Obama use against McCain. I mean Palin. :laugh:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Is she aware that we only have 50 states?

Still trolling out the same old lines... :roll:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Don't you people know that everything a politician says is coached? Even your mancrush Obama is coached on what he says...the second he thought on his own he mentioned lipstick on a pig.

Watch the O'Reilly interviews, those aren't scripted, that's him and just him. O'Reilly is fully beaming at the end of the 4th segment, he now has a huge man-crush on Obama.

But you already have your mind made up apparently, so watching it won't dissuade you I'm sure.

 

[Stoneburner]

http://www.politico.com/arena/

Decidedly mixed reviews, and the positive ones are all from repubs

I dont see many from actual dems either.

She gets a fail overall.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: venkman
Did I watch a completely different interview from the OP?

You and the entire forum.

I wish we still had thread ratings; this one is a perfect 10/10.

I skimmed the news on Yahoo this morning before work and their coverage of this interview was not in Palin's favor. I didn't see the interview and can't find the Yahoo link now.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: venkman
Did I watch a completely different interview from the OP?

You and the entire forum.

I wish we still had thread ratings; this one is a perfect 10/10.

I skimmed the news on Yahoo this morning before work and their coverage of this interview was not in Palin's favor. I didn't see the interview and can't find the Yahoo link now.

Shocker! The MSM coverage of the interview is not in her favor. Very surprising indeed.... or not. The good news is, that only serves to help her cause, it makes more people vote for her when they see the media behaving as it does.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I swear once you turn liberal all you have on your mind is hate and absolutely no common sense....

Yeah, we're the uppity elitists... :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: venkman
Did I watch a completely different interview from the OP?

You and the entire forum.

I wish we still had thread ratings; this one is a perfect 10/10.

I skimmed the news on Yahoo this morning before work and their coverage of this interview was not in Palin's favor. I didn't see the interview and can't find the Yahoo link now.

Shocker! The MSM coverage of the interview is not in her favor. Very surprising indeed.... or not. The good news is, that only serves to help her cause, it makes more people vote for her when they see the media behaving as it does.

Nice one. When the Republicans get positive media coverage you all wave it as some source of authority. When you get negative coverage you retreat to the old lie of the 'librul media'.

In some ways I don't blame you as the neverending assault on the media by the right has cowed it into being afraid to report a lot of stories that it genuinely should be reporting on, but that doesn't mean we can't see right through the tactic.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The MSM really does not like Palin, probably because the GOP has been trashing the media since Day 1 of her arrival for being too harsh on them. They are going to dissect every little thing she says in the coming weeks.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Oh God it gets even better


PALIN: Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.

If Saturday Night Live had written that, people would say it was poorly written by putting her in such a bad light it was not believable.

She can never lose in the minds of many people though. If she's clear, coherent and intelligent then she wins. If whoever is interviewing or debating her makes her look like a bumbling ignoramus, then they are big meanies (or elitists) who are ganging up on a simple country girl. And she wins.

That said, if her answer is the result of extensive republican coaching then that's pretty sad.

 

[OrByte]

amazing how in reading this thread, so many republicans are out to try and minimize the Bush Doctrine screw up by Palin.

Fact is, we ALL knew she is weak on foreign policy. She has no foreign policy background period.

Its ok to admit she made a blunder, especially when everyone else under the sun see it for what it is, she is nonexistent with regards to foreign policy.

She made another blunder too when she asked ""Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that,"

Of course there are direct statements from her stating that she doesnt believe climate change is man made! Did she really think Gibson was making it up?

rookie mistake, calling herself out on her own flip flop.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: OrByte
amazing how in reading this thread, so many republicans are out to try and minimize the Bush Doctrine screw up by Palin.

Fact is, we ALL knew she is weak on foreign policy. She has no foreign policy background period.

Its ok to admit she made a blunder, especially when everyone else under the sun see it for what it is, she is nonexistent with regards to foreign policy.

She made another blunder too when she asked ""Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that,"

Of course there are direct statements from her stating that she doesnt believe climate change is man made! Did she really think Gibson was making it up?

rookie mistake, calling herself out on her own flip flop.

Nice catch. Didn't see that part of the interview.

 

[Woofmeister]

Bah, the "Bush Doctrine" is way more than "attacking enemies before they can attack us." Even Wikipedia manages to get that right.

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.

For those of you who actually want to go to the source, the 2002 National Security Strategy can be read here.

The strategy has the following elements:

* champion aspirations for human dignity;
* strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
* work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
* prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
* ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
* expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
* develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
* transform America?s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

Sounds like Governor Palin had it right when she asked Gibson to specify "in what respect" she agreed with the "Bush doctrine" since it obviously has several elements.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: OrByte
amazing how in reading this thread, so many republicans are out to try and minimize the Bush Doctrine screw up by Palin.

Fact is, we ALL knew she is weak on foreign policy. She has no foreign policy background period.

Its ok to admit she made a blunder, especially when everyone else under the sun see it for what it is, she is nonexistent with regards to foreign policy.

She made another blunder too when she asked ""Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that,"

Of course there are direct statements from her stating that she doesnt believe climate change is man made! Did she really think Gibson was making it up?

rookie mistake, calling herself out on her own flip flop.

So, I guess that the rabid libs aren't going to vote for her? Darn darn darn ...
I was sure a little media coverage would change all their minds.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah, the "Bush Doctrine" is way more than "attacking enemies before they can attack us." Even Wikipedia manages to get that right.

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.

For those of you who actually want to go to the source, the 2002 National Security Strategy can be read here.

The strategy has the following elements:

* champion aspirations for human dignity;
* strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
* work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
* prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
* ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
* expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
* develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
* transform America?s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

Sounds like Governor Palin had it right when she asked Gibson to specify "in what respect" she agreed with the "Bush doctrine" since it obviously has several elements.

You should probably link the 2006 version, as I did earlier in the thread by the way. And no, if you watch the interview she clearly did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. It is very very commonly used in reference to preemptive war, and she had no clue.

Just admit it. It doesn't mean you can't vote for McCain anymore, but it's true.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah, the "Bush Doctrine" is way more than "attacking enemies before they can attack us." Even Wikipedia manages to get that right.

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.

For those of you who actually want to go to the source, the 2002 National Security Strategy can be read here.

The strategy has the following elements:

* champion aspirations for human dignity;
* strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
* work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
* prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
* ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
* expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
* develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
* transform America?s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

Sounds like Governor Palin had it right when she asked Gibson to specify "in what respect" she agreed with the "Bush doctrine" since it obviously has several elements.

Maybe you forgot how it went down, or maybe you have selective amnesia?

Gibson: Do you believe in the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: The Bush Doctrine?what do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His world view.

Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine. September, 2002. Before the Iraq war.

Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic Extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Gibson: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, And, please correct me if I am wrong is that we have the right of anticipatory self defense. We have the right to a preëmptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Palin: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence a strike is imminent against the American people, we have every right to defend our country.

Now if you interpreted her response "HIS WORLD VIEW" as the rigamarole you typed in your post, then more power to ya. But I'm over here rofl.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
So, I guess that the rabid libs aren't going to vote for her? Darn darn darn ...
I was sure a little media coverage would change all their minds.

no a little media INTERACTION will go a long ways to leveling the playing field. Instead of Palin taking shot after shot at Obama and Biden without challenge, now she gets to talk about how she lacks foreign policy experience, how she flip floped on climate change, and how she invokes God in almost everything she says. yay run on sentence!

Offense/Defense Offense/Defense wash rinse repeat.

 

[jonks]

Homerun? Just more lies.

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

Per the noted liberal biased AP:

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



Even McCain admits man's effect on global warming. She's an anti-science conservative religious wingnut. The main reason the right loves her is she keeps popping out kids like a pez dispenser, as they think all women should.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah, the "Bush Doctrine" is way more than "attacking enemies before they can attack us." Even Wikipedia manages to get that right.

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.

For those of you who actually want to go to the source, the 2002 National Security Strategy can be read here.

The strategy has the following elements:

* champion aspirations for human dignity;
* strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
* work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
* prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
* ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
* expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
* develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
* transform America?s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

Sounds like Governor Palin had it right when she asked Gibson to specify "in what respect" she agreed with the "Bush doctrine" since it obviously has several elements.

Huh, wha, wait... I thought "The Bush Doctrine is a term coined by Democrats that means anything that happens in a America that hasa negative effect on the nation was Bush's fault one way or another."
Now you're telling us it's a real documented foreign policy doctrine delineated by the National Security Council? How'd that happen?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah, the "Bush Doctrine" is way more than "attacking enemies before they can attack us." Even Wikipedia manages to get that right.

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.

For those of you who actually want to go to the source, the 2002 National Security Strategy can be read here.

The strategy has the following elements:

* champion aspirations for human dignity;
* strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
* work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
* prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
* ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
* expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
* develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
* transform America?s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

Sounds like Governor Palin had it right when she asked Gibson to specify "in what respect" she agreed with the "Bush doctrine" since it obviously has several elements.

Huh, wha, wait... I thought "The Bush Doctrine is a term coined by Democrats that means anything that happens in a America that hasa negative effect on the nation was Bush's fault one way or another."
Now you're telling us it's a real documented foreign policy doctrine delineated by the National Security Council? How'd that happen?

Oops!

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: venkman
Did I watch a completely different interview from the OP?

You and the entire forum.

I wish we still had thread ratings; this one is a perfect 10/10.

I skimmed the news on Yahoo this morning before work and their coverage of this interview was not in Palin's favor. I didn't see the interview and can't find the Yahoo link now.

Shocker! The MSM coverage of the interview is not in her favor. Very surprising indeed.... or not. The good news is, that only serves to help her cause, it makes more people vote for her when they see the media behaving as it does.

FFS you've got to be kidding me. The media media has been correctly reporting her selection boosted the (R) party and revived McCain's sagging campaign. She gets one sub-par review and you call bias? What a joke. I guess you forget the negative media Obama was getting when he emerged as the front runner?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah, the "Bush Doctrine" is way more than "attacking enemies before they can attack us." Even Wikipedia manages to get that right.

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.

For those of you who actually want to go to the source, the 2002 National Security Strategy can be read here.

The strategy has the following elements:

* champion aspirations for human dignity;
* strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
* work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
* prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
* ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
* expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
* develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
* transform America?s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

Sounds like Governor Palin had it right when she asked Gibson to specify "in what respect" she agreed with the "Bush doctrine" since it obviously has several elements.

Huh, wha, wait... I thought "The Bush Doctrine is a term coined by Democrats that means anything that happens in a America that hasa negative effect on the nation was Bush's fault one way or another."
Now you're telling us it's a real documented foreign policy doctrine delineated by the National Security Council? How'd that happen?

Bwahahahaha! I can almost hear Woofmeister's stomach sinking at that one.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah, the "Bush Doctrine" is way more than "attacking enemies before they can attack us." Even Wikipedia manages to get that right.

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.

For those of you who actually want to go to the source, the 2002 National Security Strategy can be read here.

The strategy has the following elements:

* champion aspirations for human dignity;
* strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
* work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
* prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
* ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
* expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
* develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
* transform America?s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

Sounds like Governor Palin had it right when she asked Gibson to specify "in what respect" she agreed with the "Bush doctrine" since it obviously has several elements.

Huh, wha, wait... I thought "The Bush Doctrine is a term coined by Democrats that means anything that happens in a America that hasa negative effect on the nation was Bush's fault one way or another."
Now you're telling us it's a real documented foreign policy doctrine delineated by the National Security Council? How'd that happen?

Be fair Vic, it wasn't woofmeister who said "The Bush Doctrine is a term coined by Democrats that means anything that happens in a America that hasa negative effect on the nation was Bush's fault one way or another," it was JeffreyLebowski. Putting one person's argument in another person's mouth is dishonest. Palin's answer was absurd, but you don't need to misrepresent the arguments of people defending her retarded answer.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Okay....

I don't think that anyone has touched on this but I just finished watching the full interview and I am pretty appalled that no one questioned or commented about her statements regarding Israel.

I don't think that we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation."

WTF can't we?

This is the mindset that drives me absolutely crazy. Oh...their our friends. We can just take their word as gospel and not worry about whether or not they are actually telling us the truth.

Edit: And if that is a homerun....I'd like to see a swing and a miss. That was more like a bloop single. It gets her on base...but it ain't scoring anyone.