FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Palin is kinda hot (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Palin is kinda hot
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, this board has a wide range of opinions including ultra-conservative libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and nut jobs. [Smile]

It's one of the reasons I like to come here to talk politics. Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...

Yep. Getting to have meaningful discussions with thoughtful, well intentioned people who held positions 180 degrees from my own was what really drew me into Hatrack, and I feel like I grew quite a bit as a person as a result of it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and nut jobs.
Hey! Quit talking about me if front of my back!

*shifty eyes*

Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
*Waves*

Some liberals opposed the war from the beginning because we were pretty sure that it would be the disaster it has been. It was also clear that the administration was cherry picking the intelligence. And that we would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one. And that it would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.

Plus we were reasonably certain that we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.

I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:

1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence.

2)We would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one.

3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.

To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was kind of involved with anti-war activism at the time and all of the things I listed (and more) were reasons for many of the people I knew. They certainly were my reasons. What evidence of this would you like?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance
That's why I opposed it from the beginning. Pre-emptive war against an independent state was wrong then and it's wrong now, no matter how much trash-talking the dictator does.
Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was probably the most important reason for me, but it was one of many.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons
The reasons I gave back when people asked me why I opposed invading Iraq:

1) The administration was cherry-picking intelligence;
2) we'd risk destabilizing the region in favor of Shiite extremists;
3) the cost would far exceed the estimates provided, and would run into the hundreds of billions;
4) we were really invading to install permanent military bases in the area in preparation for a larger war, but were lying about our reasons because the administration didn't think they could sell the public on its real motivations;
5) pre-emptive war isn't something we should be doing.

I stand by all of those.

Posts: 37431 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by K. E. Spires:
First off, wow, this is a very liberal board.

Well, the "board" as a whole, in membership, is probably about equal. However, when you are talking about vocal majority....

The rest of us learned some time back (and through last election) it is best to just remain silent, because there isn't a valid, respectful "exchange of ideas" here between two sides who can respect each other enough to just "agree to disagree" about some things.

Feel free to jump in, however, and see how it goes for you.

Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What evidence of this would you like?
Editorials. Links. Posts.

Especially about the the strengthening of an Islamicist regime in Iran.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't really post my conversations with people on the internet or what was said at meeting or rallies. Or write them down.

I am sorry that you seem to believe that I am not telling you the truth, but I will look for links of things that other people may have posted.

The likelihood of strengthening of the Islamicist regime in Iran was pretty self-evident, though. Iraq had been our ally in keeping Iran contained. Saddam Hussein imposed a secular rule in Iraq. Our invasion makes other countries in the region more anti-western which makes it more difficult for the budding moderate student movement in Iran to gain traction. How would any of those things not help the extremists in Iran to consolidate power?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The likelihood of strengthening of the Islamicist regime in Iran was pretty self-evident, though.
It's possible it was, and I don't remember the argument being made. Thus, my request for evidence that there was this concern being broadcast generally.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:
Well, I can't speak for "people who opposed the war" in general, but I can speak for myself. Unfortunately, I think the threads before August 2003 are gone, so I can't provide evidence from before the war started. However, I can provide links from shortly thereafter...

1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence.
Shortly before the Iraq War began, I started a thread about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and suggested that it should apply to Iraq - since the stakes are so high when contemplating invading a whole country. I said that we shouldn't go to war unless the administration could provide smoking-gun evidence to support what it claimed it knew. Unfortunately, that thread has been deleted.

However, on September 17, 2003 I started this thread called " Is it time to apologize yet?"

2)We would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one.
On October 28, 2003 I started a thread " Is the new Iraq government going to be more or less dangerous?" that addresses that point.

3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
This is one I don't think I ever, personally, thought. At least not about Iran specifically. But I definitely had said countless times that an Iraq War would (generally speaking) cause an increase in support for radical Islam around the world.

quote:
To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance.
That's because that was the strawman oversimplification of the anti-war argument that kept being floated around. Proponents of the war often weren't listening to the more complicated argument, and replying only to the simplified version.

There is a reason why we obey laws and morals. Things like "invading other countries without just cause" aren't illegal and immoral just for the heck of it. That reason is because we've found that, even though the people doing the invading often think it is for the best, it nevertheless usually causes harm in the big picture. Numbers 1-3 above are examples of this.

When folks said that we shouldn't invade because it wasn't justified, it was more complicated than simply expressing a concern for doing the right thing. It was because acting wrongly tends to cause unforeseen bad results.

[ September 11, 2008, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, of course, Gov. Palin is better qualified to be president right now, than Sen. Obama, who has spent most of his short legislative career voting "present." Palin has actually accomplished substantive things that brought about major changes and reform.

As for admitting Sen. McCain might die in office, it is simply a logical respect for actuarial statististics. But remember, McCain's mother is 96 and still going strong (she was at the Republican Convention). It appears that McCain could have good genes for longevity.

It also seems like a fifty-fifty proposition at this point whether McCain would run for a second term when he is 76. The presidency ages people, turns their hair prematurely white. Of course, McCain's hair is already white.

I really, really wish that McCain had won the Republican primary in 2000. Then the victory over Gore would have been by a landslide (according to most polls), so there would have been no concern over "hanging chads" and the courts stealing the election. I think McCain would have handled the aftermath to 9/11 better, using the military more effectively. I really do not know for sure if McCain would have chosen to invade Iraq. I always had the feeling that Bush Jr. felt obliged to bail out his father for failing to send US tanks on to Baghdad after successfully liberating Kuwait.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
Actually, this board has a wide range of opinions including ultra-conservative libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and nut jobs. [Smile]

It's one of the reasons I like to come here to talk politics. Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...

Amen.


Ron....brace yourself....


I wish McCain had won as well, and I don't think we would be in the same situation as we are now if he had.

It is too bad Bush didn't read his father's book....and he admitted he had never read it a few years ago, btw....because it lists many reasons why we didn't go all in during his father's administration.


The two biggest reasons why he didn't?


Cost and destabilization of the area, which would lead to greater power and influence of anti-American groups and religious extremists.

Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's really interesting to read news articles from 2001-2002 about the possibility of an Iraqi War. I came across an estimate in 2002 of 80-100 billion dollars for the war. That seemed awfully low. A March '08 estimate? Three trillion which includes costs for lives lost.
quote:
Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.
...
By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion. But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.

But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.

No matter if you believe 1.5 trillion or 3 trillion... this is a staggering and horrifying amount.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, of course, Gov. Palin is better qualified to be president right now, than Sen. Obama, who has spent most of his short legislative career voting "present."
I'm curious how short you think Obama's legislative career has been. If city and state-level government doesn't count, I'm pretty sure that leaves Palin with no experience.
Posts: 37431 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:

1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence.

2)We would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one.

3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.


Ron Paul has addressed that quite thoroughly. My notes on this particular interview on why he doesn't support the war:

quote:
1: No new information in last two months, 2 years, or even 12 years—military is weak. We are only talking about presumptions and vague accusations.
2: Nothing imminent from Saddam—he didn’t shoot down airplane in 12 years and army is 1/3 the size it was in first invasion.
3: He has not committed an act of aggression.
4: Israel and moderate Arabs have more of a stake to deal with Saddam then us and we should not hold them back.
5: Philosophical basis to oppose the war is the Christian Just War” theory: Has to be defensive and declared by proper authorities. Responsibility is on house and senate to make declaration of war—they should not have given that authority to Bush.
6: When war is initiated through the back door (not having proper declaration from congress), it tends to last longer and have unintended consequences.
7: Iraq’s were not trying to kill us. Supported funding to go after Osama, but we got diverted.
8: Taking over a Muslim Country will have more blowback.
9: War is not popular politically because people die and it hurts the economy.
10: The media (talk radio as well as supposed liberal media like CNN) and the administration presented the vague intelligence in a way to support war.

Altho this piece (the first one that came to my mind) did not spell out your concerns so clearly, I can attest that:

1) Paul made the case that there was no new intelligence to support the invasion. The presumptions were presented to the public in such a way to promote war--both by the administration and all types of media.

2)That unintended consequences would include the possibility of the people voting a Islamic Dictator instead of a secular one.

3) By us being the ones to overthrow a Muslim country there would be more blow back against us--including moderate Muslims in Iran unifying against us. If we were true non interventionists (and not Isolationists) then Israel and moderate Arabs could deal with the situation much more effectively.

Like I said, I don't have the exact quotes on those three points, but this summary of this interview should show that direction. I can look for more precise quotes if you like.

[ September 11, 2008, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: lem ]

Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Ron....brace yourself....


I wish McCain had won as well, and I don't think we would be in the same situation as we are now if he had.


Me, too. I voted for him in the primary.I only became a rabid democrat when Pres. Bush was nominated.

Sen. McCain is not the same person he was. At least he doesn't act like the same person. He has caved to the right wing of the party. He even hired the same people who trashed him in South Carolina, people whose tactics he rightly deplored. And given the situation in Iraq and Sen. McCain's apparent eagerness for more war, he is a dangerous choice in 2008.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago or even 4 years ago. Wish the same guy were running today.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
What evidence of this would you like?
Editorials. Links. Posts.

Especially about the the strengthening of an Islamicist regime in Iran.

Re: Cherry Picking Intelligence (to start)

Okay. There is a lot to sort through and not all of the places I was getting news are well archived. Here are a few though:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

From CBS News September 4, 2002

quote:
With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Published on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
The Evidence Bush is Withholding Weakens, Not Strengthens the Case for War

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0128-08.htm

Published on Sunday, October 13, 2002 by The Sunday Herald (Scotland)

Why the CIA Thinks Bush is Wrong

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1013-04.htm

Had I more time, I could link to dozens more. These were just the first few I came across in the first couple of months I started checking.

Not to mention that the Office of Special Plans was created in the fall of 2002. What did people think it was for?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Parts 2 and 3 seem (again) obvious.

Iraq has a Shiite majority, they were suppressed by Saddam Hussein. If we remove that suppression, we will have to deal with a pro-Islamicist majority in Iraq. Similar to the one in Iran. How could this not be a problem?

I will go sift through links, though.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My reasons for opposing the war are mostly aligned with Tom's, but to add to what he said:

1. I thought inspections should have been given more of a try, and that the burden of proof was wrong formulated to create a situation impossible for Iraq to get out of.
2. There was nothing in place to replace Saddam. "Democracy" isn't a one size fits all solution. Saddam was a force that kept together a region that since birth was determined to fly apart.
3. We had relatively few allies on our side, and it shouldn't be done without a large coalition of forces.


quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Yes, of course, Gov. Palin is better qualified to be president right now, than Sen. Obama, who has spent most of his short legislative career voting "present."
I'm curious how short you think Obama's legislative career has been. If city and state-level government doesn't count, I'm pretty sure that leaves Palin with no experience.
Come on Tom, that's namby pamby legislative experience, not super awesome, totally cool mayoral or gubanatorial experience. It only counts when it's executive experience.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Spires--one thing I find weak in the AM-Radio Republicans is that they have a "them or us" attitude. If you disagree on anything you are a scum-liberal. The problem is that those people who disagree on one or two things realize that they are neither scum nor liberal. They then disregard everything else you have to say.

Only those who are invested heavily in the Conservative label and are willing to subjugate all of their ideals to what some other person defines as the "conservative" view is still going to listen to you.

Back to Governor Palin.

When I first heard Senator McCain's choice I was worried. Could he have found a way to gather the disappointed Hillary vote? Was this woman the wonderful Maverick that was being promoted and could this end Senator Obama's campaign?

Then there was the first week of revelations. Again I was afraid, were we unearthing some Crusading Faith-monger so Christianly conservative that all others risk being burned at the stake if she becomes President?

Now, however, after researching all the accusations and revelations, the lies pro and con, I am just saddened.

She is merely a politician, a petty one at that, more interested in her own electability than in any true cause.

I consider her a "Centurion in Temple Robes."

What is that? Well, there is a story.

For a time Rome held Israel, and even some within the Temple itself bowed to the might of Rome. One day, being a bit curious, a Centurion of Rome slipped into the Temple to see what happened there. He was impressed with the devotion and worship that the Isrealites gave to their God.

The next day he forced the Temple priests into disguising him as one of them. He would slip on one of their robes and join the other priests in leading the prayers.

He even memorized enough Hebrew so as to say the right words.

When he stood up there and the hundreds in the room bowed to God, he thought "They are bowing to me". When they gave up Praise and Worship to God, he thought "They are praising me. They are worshiping me." When the swore to obey God's law he thought "They have sworn to obey me."

And the saddest part of the story is that a few, seeing him in the correct robes, hearing the correct language out of his mouth, believed as he did.

But the Centurion, who could have used his time in the Temple of God to find his faith, or to discuss with the wisest of Israel the meaning of God's word, he sought only to seek donations to line his pockets.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
String
Member
Member # 6435

 - posted      Profile for String   Email String         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago or even 4 years ago. Wish the same guy were running today.

It amazes me that so many people can believe that john McCain would actually run the country differently than he would have eight years ago. He changed campaign tactics this time around because he wants to win. He has to get elected to make a difference. Abe Lincoln ran on a pro slavery platform, If he had not, he would not have become president. If John McCain (Who some people SAY they would have voted for) Had used those "deplorable" tactics eight years ago, everyone might have gotten what they wanted, and we wouldn't we might not have had the republic party hi-jacked by a bunch of neo cons trying to redefine what it means to be a conservative.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it comes down to a question of integrity. I wouldn't have voted for McCain in any election, so I can't say for sure, but after he railed against the tactics Bush used, to use those same tactics, and even worse, to use tactics that even Karl Rove has called over the line puts him pretty low on my totem pole of respect.

I would never vote for a guy who was willing to absolutely do or say anything to get to the office. That's part of why I didn't support Clinton. As her campaign went on and it appeared she wouldn't coast to victory, she showed a vicious, honorless streak in her that totally turned me off to her.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For me it is the aformentioned integrity and a grasp of issues that he doesn't seem to have anymore.

Different times call for different leaders. The US wasn't in the same "place" eight years ago. We weren't involved in two wars. Though he seems pretty gung ho about Iraq now, I don't know that he (minus VP Cheney) would have rushed us into that war in the first place. Since we are there, he seems inclined to stay. As the world is now, I think he would be a disasterous president.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
St. Yogi
Member
Member # 5974

 - posted      Profile for St. Yogi   Email St. Yogi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't be so sure:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/16/mccain-in-jan-2002-next-up-baghdad/

quote:
The New York Times runs a lengthy article today on how the 9/11 attacks contributed to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) foreign policy, particulary his aggression towards Iraq. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said in Feb. 2002, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching”:
quote:
Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!” […]

“These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure.

In written answers to the Times, McCain blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the threat. Weeks after 9/11, McCain told Larry King that he would have named Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” McCain added, saying he would have offered Dick Cheney the vice presidency.
Update One month after 9/11, McCain was already warning that "the second phase is Iraq."


Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyone else notice Peggy Hill and Palin are almost identical?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is something I didn't know about Sen. McCain at the time.

In other news, Gov. Palin refusing to meet with investigators regarding the firing of Walter Monegan is not what I would call the behavior of a champion of accountable, transparent government.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think it comes down to a question of integrity. I wouldn't have voted for McCain in any election, so I can't say for sure, but after he railed against the tactics Bush used, to use those same tactics, and even worse, to use tactics that even Karl Rove has called over the line puts him pretty low on my totem pole of respect.

I would never vote for a guy who was willing to absolutely do or say anything to get to the office. That's part of why I didn't support Clinton. As her campaign went on and it appeared she wouldn't coast to victory, she showed a vicious, honorless streak in her that totally turned me off to her.

I agree completely. I don't think McCain would be a disaster, but I don't trust him any more. Anyone who could not only work for the guy who did that to him, but could then turn around and claim to be a maverick despite that doesn't get my vote.


Please not that I don't dislike him, but I don't agree with a lot of his political positions, and don't like his support for the Bush admin's policies despite the unmitigated disaster they have been. That shows a disconnect with reality IMO, and makes me fear he will continue to throw our resources away at the current rate.


When I think what I could have spent all the money on the war on it makes my blood boil, and I am not even a public servant. Even with no training or education in the field, I could hardly spent the money any worse....and at least our own country would have benefited.

[ September 15, 2008, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]

Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
K. E. Spires
New Member
Member # 11743

 - posted      Profile for K. E. Spires           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the interest of intellectual honesty...

Since the fit hit the shan with the economy, I'm going to be voting for Barack.

He'll help push through more regulation. I'm not a democrat, but good grief, the republican addiction to the free market has caused enough havoc.

If we let the guys and gals up on Wall Street do whatever they want, they'll do stupid stuff like this.

I'm frustrated.

Posts: 4 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I understand your frustration, but a few minor points:

Capitalism != letting Wall Street do what it wants.

A substantial part of the most problematic securities were created by semi-private companies (the FMs) able to borrow at gov't rates, not market rates, making them carry less risk while securing more (short term) gain.

Many of the other problematic securities (credit swaps) were created to deal with increased regulation on the grade of debt/investment various kinds of companies were allowed to hold as part of capital requirements. That is, it is possible to acquire one grade of debt, then effectively switch it out for another grade of debt. There's nothing inherently wrong with credit swaps, but because they were being used for regulatory arbitrage they ended up spreading risk without diluting it all that much.

Heck, without mark to market accounting, the credit collapse certainly wouldn't have happened so dramatically (though there would have been some sort of decline). That was a practice mandated by Sarbanes-Oxley, of course.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Anyone else notice Peggy Hill and Palin are almost identical?

Only in that they are both women and they are both brunettes. Beyond that they are completely different.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe its the accent.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They also have glasses.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Anyone else notice Peggy Hill and Palin are almost identical?

Only in that they are both women and they are both brunettes. Beyond that they are completely different.
They're both cartoons.... OOOOHHHHH!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Anyone else notice Peggy Hill and Palin are almost identical?

Only in that they are both women and they are both brunettes. Beyond that they are completely different.
They're both cartoons.... OOOOHHHHH!
And their both substitutes!

*jumping high five*

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First Lady Laura Bush met with Governor Palin and said, "She doesn't know enough of foreign policy, but she is a quick learner."

That seemed good enough for some people, but nobody bother to ask, "Great, she a quick learner, but who is going to be the teacher?"

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What does it mean when Laura Bush is unimpressed with someone's foreign policy experience?
Posts: 37431 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, considering who her husband is, she'd know a lack of ability to handle foreign policy when she sees it.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I support Palin for president.

And I wanna get a fuzzy thing.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bristol is hot. [Embarrassed]
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Laura Bush is awesome. I think she's wonderful.
Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Top Ten Reasons Sarah Palin Cancels the Debate

*giggles*

quote:
10. Suspicious Russian tourists spotted across the Bering strait in Dezhnevo

9. Wrasslin' a bear

8. Learns Tina Fey will be watching


Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"8. Learns Tina Fey will be watching/

LOL

Posts: 3295 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cactus Jack
Member
Member # 2671

 - posted      Profile for Cactus Jack           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Post Article on Palin: The Early Years
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Should be interesting. I will watch what I can tonight, but I am moving tomorrow so I may not get to see it.
Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sigh... Lakes, wolves and grizzlys, polar bears, salmon, beluga whales...
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are McCain and Palin heirs to the legacy of George Wallace?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2