| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
Ft. "You brought up her statement as a pejorative. One would only utilize her statement it as such if it was believed that she indeed said "she could see Russia from her house"." Where in my comment did you see anything about Sarah Palin's house? My favorite part about Palin's statement is that people defend it as a reasonable, meaningful answer. So "Ft bstrd: I bet you loved Sarah "I can See Russia" Palin." had absolutely NO reference to any of the popular ripping on her? If not, why bring it up AT ALL? You can play coy. It's fine. Her answer was relevant. Her unique proximity and governor of a state very near to a former super power and enemy of the US was the question. She gave a frame of reference of proximity. For the rest of us, Russia is some far away place. For Alaska, it's less than 3 miles away. Nearly every scenario for invasion had Russia rolling right through Alaska. You bring up the statement because of the SNL parody. You bring it up because you don't like Palin. You either had no idea what the correct statement was and believe that Tina Fey echoed Palin's statements correctly, OR you know the correct statement and choose to repeat what you KNOW to be an untruth for political gain. You are either being ignorant or intellectually dishonest. | ||
| Daggar |
Reindog - Unfortunately, voting for a so-called conservative Republican results in bigger government. Voting for a liberal Democrat results in bigger government. Both parties piss on the Constitution with reckless abandon. Neither party will have my support. I will vote for who I think will do the best job for the country, which in the past has been the Libertarian candidate. Do I expect anything to change? No. Nothing will change without blood at this point, IMO. But at least I know I voted for who I thought would do the best job. We've been well conditioned to think of politics as a team sport. It's not. Think outside the box. | ||
| Reindog |
Wowsas! That is a cynical, but incorrect, attitude. I would love to chat but I'm due back on the planet Earth. | ||
| Boltrider |
When I vote 3rd party I do so because I don't like an establishment "R" candidate getting my vote by default. They have to earn it, and that's usually where the big names lose me. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Bolt, The problem with that thinking is that many times voting third party is cashing an unintentional vote for the establishment "D" candidate. | ||
| Fahren |
Ft, is it ok for folks to vote Nader, but not ok for folks to vote Ron Paul? Is that where you are going? By the way, I am a big fan of Ron Paul, and he could easily steal my D vote - so your thinking may be a bit narrow-focused. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Fahren: "By the way, I am a big fan of Ron Paul, and he could easily steal my D vote - so your thinking may be a bit narrow-focused." This, 100%. Ft: "Her answer was relevant. Her unique proximity and governor of a state very near to a former super power and enemy of the US was the question." No. Just, no. You pasted the question above, so I'm shocked you don't know what it was. Let me help. The question was, what insight into russian action, particularly in the past couple of weeks, does your proximity to Russia give you? The answer she gave was, I am damn close to Russia. Relevant? Nope. Insightful? Nope. Meaningful? Nope. Again, what do you say if Obama gives an answer like this? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ft, is it ok for folks to vote Nader, but not ok for folks to vote Ron Paul? Is that where you are going? By the way, I am a big fan of Ron Paul, and he could easily steal my D vote - so your thinking may be a bit narrow-focused. No, my point was third party candidates, regardless of whether they are left leaning or right leaning, are non starters and virtually guarantee the loss of the candidate they most closely reflect. Democrats were just as angry about Nader as Republicans were about Perot. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ft: "Her answer was relevant. Her unique proximity and governor of a state very near to a former super power and enemy of the US was the question." No. Just, no. You pasted the question above, so I'm shocked you don't know what it was. Let me help. The question was, what insight into russian action, particularly in the past couple of weeks, does your proximity to Russia give you? The answer she gave was, I am damn close to Russia. Relevant? Nope. Insightful? Nope. Meaningful? Nope. Again, what do you say if Obama gives an answer like this? You act as though she was asked about Kentucky and her answer was "well I live in TN right next to it". Are you unclear as to the unique role that Governors of Alaska had during the cold war and have even today? She understands the risk. As governor, she lived it every day. She knows what kind of threat Russia poses not only to the US but to Georgia. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Ft: Maybe she should have given that answer. But she didn't, did she? | ||
| Xb1125r |
unfortunately, like a comercial from the 80's stated image is everything. I think republicans want a reagan type of republican. we are tired of guys like Bush that tries to be nice an please everyone. IN DC you have to have balls and go by your believes. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Liberals are just as fed up with bought and paid for politicians as conservatives are. There comes a time when you have to let go of your nose and just do the right thing. There is no easy fix. | ||
| Swordsman |
Normally I'm in total agreement with Fatty on politics, but I don't get the Ron Paul hate. What is it about Paul that makes you think he's crazy, Ft? All the videos I've watched in the past seemed like a healthy dose of common sense. Did I miss something? ~SM | ||
| Blake |
>>> You are either being ignorant or intellectually dishonest. He's not being ignorant, as even after you stated the truth, he continues with the nonsense. It's quite tiresome, debating as if the discussion were a legal case rather than an honest thoughtful exchange of ideas. It is yet another trait of trolls. Justin, You were wrong and got called on it. Suck it up and move on. Continuing to try to defend your misbehavior is only reinforcing the negative impression you are making. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Blake: Where in the good lord's name was I wrong about anything I've said on this thread? | ||
| Sifo |
What is it about Paul that makes you think he's crazy, Ft? All the videos I've watched in the past seemed like a healthy dose of common sense. Did I miss something? Not to try to answer for Fatty, but for me when it comes to international affairs he is isolationist to the extreme. This just isn't a reflection of the world in which we live in the modern age. On fiscal matters he tends to be pretty spot on. The first time I saw him in a debate I was thinking how much I liked what he had to say. Then all of a sudden the debate turned to international matters and realized he wasn't a candidate that I could ever support. | ||
| Sifo |
On the "You can see Russia from here" thing, I'm just a bit confused. I went to youtube and looked up that interview. I couldn't find that clip in what was shown in the original interview. All I can find is a 13 second clip that seems to cut Sarah off very abruptly. I would love to be able to see this clip in it's full context, without the abrupt edit that seems to indicate there was more to the answer. So I'm wondering... 1) Was this Q&A not part of the interview that was aired. 2) If not, how was it released? 3) Does the clip exist in a longer form? 4) In the original interview Gibson asked another question where he made it clear that McCain originated the idea that the proximity of AK to Russia helped to qualify Palin for VP. It's interesting that McCain doesn't get grilled over this at all. 5) It was a very chopped up interview. They had 2 days that were distilled down to just a few minutes. I could never understand a "seasoned" politician handing over a green VP candidate to an interview of that format with people who are less than supportive to their cause. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Paul believes we were attacked partly because of our military presence in the middle east. He wants to get us out of that and other regions. He believes we can't tell Iran they can't build nuclear weapons if other countries can have them. He believes the government has no business regulating the religious practice of marriage. He believes states for the most part should handle their own business. I think these are some things conservatives get hung up on but I'm not speaking for fat or anyone else. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: I think you are correct that Paul's international theory does not reflect the world we live in now, but do you think he is wrong that we should work to make it the world we live in? I'm not sure I'm convinced one way or the other. We've spent a lot of dough overseas. How much of it comes back when 9-11 hits or Katrina hits or when the Tornado rips up a region? Maybe it is a heartless thing to say,but there was a time when we left home only when we thought there was a direct threat to us. Now, we do it when others are threatened. Maybe we will be able to afford to be the world police again someday, but today isn't that day. I wonder if we'd all be better off returning to an isolationist theory of foreign policy. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't think Ron Paul would have been in favor of defeating Hitler in WWII. He makes some very good points, but he is extremist in his views. Unrealistically extremist. Maybe it is a heartless thing to say,but there was a time when we left home only when we thought there was a direct threat to us. Now, we do it when others are threatened. I'm not sure what we means in that statement. US military? Ambassadors? Aide missions? We have always been involved beyond our borders to some degree. I will agree that I think we are too involved in many issues beyond our borders. The question is just where that balance should be. I'm somewhere between Ron Paul and current reality. Probably slightly toward the side of current reality though. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I'm torn on the intervention versus isolation thing. On one hand, it's none of our business and not our problem, and most things we try will probably make some things better but at the cost of making other things worse... so we can never win. On the other hand, if a country and it's leader are all chanting "death to America" and "We will wipe Israel off the map" while aggressively developing nuclear weapons, I'm inclined to take a man at his word, and the best way to win a nuclear war is to make sure the other side can't get in it so you don't have to be either. So I don't see an easy answer. I will say that borrowing money from the Chinese to give to people that say they hate us seems pretty stupid. And that anything we do will make some things better, and other things worse, and predicting either reliably is nearly impossible. So from that standpoint, the one guiding principal I would use would be "less is more". Good discussion! | ||
| Reepicheep |
Oh, and to bring the topic back on track for motorcycles... I'm reading the sequel to Jupiters Travels. The writer has lived in the UK and France and the US, and if anything has a typically european slightly left / slightly anti America slant. Nothing major, and his right, but it seems to be there. Reading through his political observations, it seems like before America did anything, most small central american nations were an impoverished mess with dictatorships run by corrupt @&&^%^#s. Then America got involved, and as a result, from then on, most small central american nations were an improverished mess with dictatorships run by corrupt @$$&^*(s, and it is of course Americas fault. That seems to suggest the only real option is the WWII model. Stay out of it until it is unimaginably bad, then come in at a staggering cost to fix it, then get the hell out as quickly as humanly possible. I just don't know how that will work in the age of nuclear weapons. What would have happened if Hitler had nukes? | ||
| Blake |
Justin, You were wrong to imply that the "I can see Russia..." was something Palin said. She didn't. As Jeremy wrote you were either ignorant or intentionally dishonest. When showed the error, you defend it, so the only conclusion one can make is that you are being intentionally misleading. You were also wrong to state that her actual answer lacked reason or meaning. It may have lacked clarification, which she later provided, but it certainly didn't lack reason or meaning, especially given the interview as a whole. Well, unless you are totally ignorant of Alaska's key role concerning our national defense and Russia, not to mention trade relations of neighboring nations. COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that? | ||
| Blake |
I don't know why any politician would agree to allow editing of any interview. Very revealing... http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/ 13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-inter view | ||
| Swordsman |
Ah, didn't know that about Paul's isolationist views. Most of his videos I've watched have been economic and rights focused. I'll admit though, I foster a healthy dose of "get the hell out" myself. We spend ENTIRELY too much money abroad policing and supplying people that don't even like us. I'd like to see us step out of that role, and stop being so politically F'n correct and apologetic all the time. Keep out of others' business, support our closest allies when they need us, and kick ass with such unrestrained force that foreign troublemakers will actually be afraid of US involvement. I guess that makes me a "violent libertarian".  ~SM (Message edited by Swordsman on August 19, 2011) | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Justin, "You were wrong to imply that the "I can see Russia..." was something Palin said. She didn't." Um. You just posted an entire thread of interviews in which she "clarified" her statement to that effect, but you take the position that she didn't say it in the first place? Okey dokey. | ||
| Hootowl |
She didn't utter those words. She said that there are places in Alaska where you can see Russia. She didn't say "I can see Russia from my house" or even "I can see Russia". It has been explained that the proximity to Russia grants the governor of Alaska access to information that other governors are not privy to, as well as involvement with international affairs that other governors are not involved in. This has a direct bearing on her qualifications as president. | ||
| Blake |
Troll proved. | ||
| Blake |
Patience exhausted. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Tina Fey said it on SNL Same Folks watch Stewarts bad copy of weekend up date rip off of Chevy Chase! Blake Pettifogging lawyers are Trolls |
