Sarah Palin completely clueless about everything?

[GigaBear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc




Curious to see how this will be spun.



I have to agree with Cafferty---that was just embarrassing. I cringed more than once.



I'm 23 and have nothing more than a passing knowledge of economics, and I was downright scared by that answer---or lack thereof.

[baylorles]

I'm starting to feel sorry her.

[Bexar Fan]

I'm beginning to think that possibly John McCain and Sarah Palin may be similar to Ross Perot and Vice Adm. James Stockdale.

As an equal opportunity disrespector, I would have to say that the Dems this year aren't that much better.

[Volunteer]

Tried to cram too much into the answer. Could of just said "Katie, you don't know squat if you think bailing out the banks doesn't help folks on Main Street".

Basically the vast majority of Americans are incapable of understanding this bailout and what impact is will, or will not, have on the economy.

[The Banterer]

I think this is a situation where the Republicans put too much emphasis on the short-term, without fully considering the long-term. It's becoming more and more evident that they really wanted a pick out of left field, which was great as a means to generate excitement after the convention, but meant that she didn't really have much time to get up to speed on national issues.

I don't think she's unintelligent at all, but it's really looking like she won't be able to develop any sort of depth in her knowledge on national issues for quite some time, probably not until well after the election. This could be very bad for the Republican ticket, as there are a lot of people who will generalize her as being unintelligent because of this lack of knowledge.

Thursday's debate should be very interesting. We'll have to see if Biden is able to not look like a complete jerk when she struggles.

[nein51]

I dont want to scare you but you are putting FAR (and I mean WAY WAY WAY) too much hope that many of the people in Congress know any better. It is downright scary how little politicians know about economics since most dont come from that background.

The economy is one area you could lump basically all politicians together in a group, some may have a slightly more passing knowledge than others but they cant even collectively balance a check book or write a budget.

[Volunteer]

Maybe her answer should have simply been, "the answer to that question is above my pay grade".

[canuckbear]

She kind of reminds of Obama in this respect.

[The Banterer]

She kind of reminds of Obama in this respect.

What respect is that?

Disagree with the man all you want, but to try and say that he struggles with the issues as much as Palin has, you're going to need some specifics.

And in-speech gaffs don't count, because everyone makes those mistakes. It's what Bush is known for and I still believe that he is a very effective speaker.

[canuckbear]

Specifics is what I am talking about. You tell me the specifics on Obama. Change and Hope don't count. I do know he likes to kill babies and hates rich people. You come up with the rest.

The Banterer is the other sides Rushski

[GigaBear]

The Banterer is the other sides Rushski


That's a load of crap, and that type of insult will get you banned around here.


Banterer makes reasonable posts. You can't back up what you said, but don't resort to insults.

[KellerBear]

It's a LIVE one over here!

[canuckbear]

True the Rushki was bad. I apologize to the Banterer.

End of the day I don't think Obama is the right man to lead this country. You disagree with me and that's cool. For the record I don't think McCain is the right man either, but this is what we get.

Obama is good with big words and a telepromptor, but experience is a huge problem with me for him.

[The Banterer]

True the Rushki was bad. I apologize to the Banterer.

End of the day I don't think Obama is the right man to lead this country. You disagree with me and that's cool. For the record I don't think McCain is the right man either, but this is what we get.

Obama is good with big words and a telepromptor, but experience is a huge problem with me for him.

Fair enough.

For the record, I'm probably not voting for Obama unless something crazy happens and it looks like Texas could be in play. If I do end up voting for him, it will be for his attitude about leadership, specifically in foreign policy.

I don't think either candidate will be great for the country, but I think that Obama has a better chance than McCain, just because the shift in perception that he could bring could reestablish some of our damaged credibility in the international community.

[The Banterer]

Specifics is what I am talking about. You tell me the specifics on Obama. Change and Hope don't count. I do know he likes to kill babies and hates rich people. You come up with the rest.

The Banterer is the other sides Rushski

What specifically is McCain going to do other than more Bush-era tax cuts? Elections are won on generalities, because neither candidate really has any way of knowing what they'll be able to accomplish in office until they get there.

If you think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned if McCain is elected, then more power to you.

[Volunteer]

What specifically is McCain going to do other than more Bush-era tax cuts? Elections are won on generalities, because neither candidate really has any way of knowing what they'll be able to accomplish in office until they get there.

If you think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned if McCain is elected, then more power to you.


I don't think anyone really thinks that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. At least not anytime soon. Maybe I'll start another thread just to discuss the issue.

The primary reason to oppose Barack is his stated position that he will cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. Interesting - especially when you look at the numbers. About 45%, or so, of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes. Since, as Billy Preston so ably said, "nothing from nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'" Barack is really talking about a direct payment to this 45% of Americans.

I don't like this idea at all. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans so that you can directly transfer the money under the guise of a "tax redution" is wrong. If Barack is going to take more money from the top 5% of Americans he should put the money toward the deficit. But that won't buy him any votes.

The top 5% already finance everything in the country. Enough is enough. Let's curb spending. Force every federal department to reduce it's budget by 3% next year, an additional 2% the following year and another 2% in year three. Happens everyday in business. Only the government gets a bigger budget every year.:thumbdown:

[The Banterer]

I don't think anyone really thinks that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. At least not anytime soon. Maybe I'll start another thread just to discuss the issue.

The primary reason to oppose Barack is his stated position that he will cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. Interesting - especially when you look at the numbers. About 45%, or so, of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes. Since, as Billy Preston so ably said, "nothing from nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'" Barack is really talking about a direct payment to this 45% of Americans.

I don't like this idea at all. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans so that you can directly transfer the money under the guise of a "tax redution" is wrong. If Barack is going to take more money from the top 5% of Americans he should put the money toward the deficit. But that won't buy him any votes.

The top 5% already finance everything in the country. Enough is enough. Let's curb spending. Force every federal department to reduce it's budget by 3% next year, an additional 2% the following year and another 2% in year three. Happens everyday in business. Only the government gets a bigger budget every year.:thumbdown:

I agree with pretty much everything is this post, except for the idea that the middle class doesn't get hammered by taxes. My parent's have a household income of about $100,000, and they pay crazy taxes, even though they're well within the middle class. From what I've read online, they would get a significantly bigger tax break from Obama than McCain.

I think that right now, no one should be getting tax cuts. We need to focus on getting back in the black through fiscal restraint, then give everyone awesome tax cuts when we no longer owe our souls to the rest of the world.

I also oppose the progressive tax system, but in the short term we should probably hang onto it just to make paying down the debt (if we ever do that) easier.

[ChipOC]

I agree with pretty much everything is this post, except for the idea that the middle class doesn't get hammered by taxes. My parent's have a household income of about $100,000, and they pay crazy taxes, even though they're well within the middle class. From what I've read online, they would get a significantly bigger tax break from Obama than McCain.

I think that right now, no one should be getting tax cuts. We need to focus on getting back in the black through fiscal restraint, then give everyone awesome tax cuts when we no longer owe our souls to the rest of the world.

I also oppose the progressive tax system, but in the short term we should probably hang onto it just to make paying down the debt (if we ever do that) easier.
Bush's tax cuts brought in more revenue for the government. The problem is that Congress wouldn't stop spending. Wait till you get into the tax bracket of some of us on here and you are paying 35% in taxes with SS etc tacking on another 8%. If Obama gets elected, it will jump to at least 38%, probably more like 40%. So I'll be paying almost half of my income to the government only to have it dolled out to people who don't pay anything. You could see why I'd be against that.

[Volunteer]

I agree with pretty much everything is this post, except for the idea that the middle class doesn't get hammered by taxes. My parent's have a household income of about $100,000, and they pay crazy taxes, even though they're well within the middle class. From what I've read online, they would get a significantly bigger tax break from Obama than McCain.

I think that right now, no one should be getting tax cuts. We need to focus on getting back in the black through fiscal restraint, then give everyone awesome tax cuts when we no longer owe our souls to the rest of the world.

I also oppose the progressive tax system, but in the short term we should probably hang onto it just to make paying down the debt (if we ever do that) easier.

You're parents are indeed right in the middle of the middle class. At $100K in earning your parents are somewhere around the top 12% of income earners. You should know that a number of democrats would view them as wealthy.

Here's an interesting fact. In 1999 (before the Bush tax cuts - hyped by the democrats as "for the wealthy") the top 5% of income earners paid 55% of all income tax receipts. In 2006 (after the greedy Republicans cut taxes "for the wealthy") the top 5% of income earners paid 60% of all income tax receipts.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6


Surprising, isn't it.

[The Banterer]

Bush's tax cuts brought in more revenue for the government. The problem is that Congress wouldn't stop spending. Wait till you get into the tax bracket of some of us on here and you are paying 35% in taxes with SS etc tacking on another 8%. If Obama gets elected, it will jump to at least 38%, probably more like 40%. So I'll be paying almost half of my income to the government only to have it dolled out to people who don't pay anything. You could see why I'd be against that.

Definitely. I mean, I don't understand how anyone thinks our current tax system is fair at all, since we basically punish people for success. In my ideal US, Congress would only spend what it could afford, and we'd have some sort of a flat tax, whether it be a set income tax or a sales tax. That alone could save the government a lot of time and money.

[canuckbear]

Definitely. I mean, I don't understand how anyone thinks our current tax system is fair at all, since we basically punish people for success. In my ideal US, Congress would only spend what it could afford, and we'd have some sort of a flat tax, whether it be a set income tax or a sales tax. That alone could save the government a lot of time and money.



I agree with you 100%. Will it ever happen? Probably not it makes to much sense.

[canuckbear]

What specifically is McCain going to do other than more Bush-era tax cuts? Elections are won on generalities, because neither candidate really has any way of knowing what they'll be able to accomplish in office until they get there.

If you think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned if McCain is elected, then more power to you.

Roe V Wade will not be overturned, but Obama is pretty liberal on his stance on abortion.

[ChipOC]

Consumption tax is the way to go in my opinion.

[GigaBear]

Definitely. I mean, I don't understand how anyone thinks our current tax system is fair at all, since we basically punish people for success. In my ideal US, Congress would only spend what it could afford, and we'd have some sort of a flat tax, whether it be a set income tax or a sales tax. That alone could save the government a lot of time and money.



Ron Paul FTW!

[The Banterer]

Ron Paul FTW!

Haha, basically. Except for that silliness about the gold standard.

[atxtraveler]

I am not voting for Obama for the following reasons (in no particular order):

-His stance on partial birth abortion. Every child has a right to come into this world.
-His stance on the war. We are in the war whether or not you agree with it. Pulling out immediately is not a good idea, at all.
-His stance on the economy including voting record and the fact that Franklin Raines is one of his chief economic advisors.
-His stance on Iran, in particular about giving equal time at the table to their president. Any state sponsored terrorism should not be tolerated. If the man can not recognize Israel as a nation, we have no business talking to him.
-His association with Reverend Wright. He sat in this man's congregation for 20 years (supposedly) and never once thought the guy was off his rocker?
-His degree in International Relations is from Columbia. I like their sportswear, their district, and their coffee.... the University however is a piece of work.

[atxtraveler]

Ron Paul FTW!

If Ron Paul was not such a one-issue candidate, he might have a legitimate shot.

[SoTex]

Consumption tax is the way to go in my opinion.

Amen.

A flat tax is my second choice.

The current tax code is my 9,875,438,4879,980,876th choice.

[SoTex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc




Curious to see how this will be spun.



I have to agree with Cafferty---that was just embarrassing. I cringed more than once.



I'm 23 and have nothing more than a passing knowledge of economics, and I was downright scared by that answer---or lack thereof.

Giga, we'll sit you in front of a national reporter and see how you do.

That was her first interview to a national audience. Her first! I had to give a 4 sentence announcement at church on Sunday at the morning service and later service. In the later service, I was nervous as can be because I knew it was televised.

That was a terrible answer, no doubt, but I think it had more to do with the situation than her knowledge.

We'll know more after Thursday night.

[atxtraveler]

So, I just did my first nationally covered webinar for Ziff Davis today, and I can tell you... it is nerve racking. I have presented to 100's and in on case 1000 people before live with no fear, but today I was extremely nervous. I guarantee you though the next time I do it, there will not be one ounce of nerves.

[GigaBear]

-His stance on Iran, in particular about giving equal time at the table to their president. Any state sponsored terrorism should not be tolerated. If the man can not recognize Israel as a nation, we have no business talking to him.

This could not possibly be any more wrong and any more short-sighted. I suppose that instead of talking to him, we should just bomb Iran, right?

There are no other alternatives besides talking to him. If we're talking about buying him dinner and funding his military, that's one thing---but we're not. We're talking discussion, diplomacy, conversation. How you can possibly be against that REGARDLESS of who it is with is absolutely beyond me.


Giga, we'll sit you in front of a national reporter and see how you do.

That was her first interview to a national audience. Her first! I had to give a 4 sentence announcement at church on Sunday at the morning service and later service. In the later service, I was nervous as can be because I knew it was televised.

That was a terrible answer, no doubt, but I think it had more to do with the situation than her knowledge.

We'll know more after Thursday night.



No offense, SoTex, you know I love you, but.....are you freaking kidding me? She didn't just make a mistake about one of the issues in her response---the entire thing was incomprehensible nonsense that had NOTHING to do with anything, much less the question asked.


I don't care if it was her first time in front of a camera in her entire life, that doesn't make her brains go out the window. Further, it wasn't her first question of the night--she had time to warm up.


There is no excuse for that nonsense. If I were voting, I would vote for McCain, but I was absolutely EMBARRASSED by Palin's response in that video. How anyone can be anything but appalled and embarrassed as an American is beyond me.

[atxtraveler]

This could not possibly be any more wrong and any more short-sighted. I suppose that instead of talking to him, we should just bomb Iran, right?

There are no other alternatives besides talking to him. If we're talking about buying him dinner and funding his military, that's one thing---but we're not. We're talking discussion, diplomacy, conversation. How you can possibly be against that REGARDLESS of who it is with is absolutely beyond me.

Have you heard his stance on the issue of the Holocaust? He to this day does not believe it happened. He is dead pan serious when he says these things. There is no discussion, diplomacy or conversation with a mad man.

[The Banterer]

I am not voting for Obama for the following reasons (in no particular order):

-His stance on partial birth abortion. Every child has a right to come into this world. Do you believe that national laws regarding abortion are going to be affected by the President we elect in November?
-His stance on the war. We are in the war whether or not you agree with it. Pulling out immediately is not a good idea, at all. He doesn't support an immediate pullout. BTW, that's what she said.
-His stance on the economy including voting record and the fact that Franklin Raines is one of his chief economic advisors. Franklin Raines has denied being an advisor to Obama.
-His stance on Iran, in particular about giving equal time at the table to their president. Any state sponsored terrorism should not be tolerated. If the man can not recognize Israel as a nation, we have no business talking to him. I don't think the way to solve problems is to ignore them. If talking to the Iranians can prevent future wars, then I think it's a good idea. The last thing you want to do is make the crazy guy hate you.
-His association with Reverend Wright. He sat in this man's congregation for 20 years (supposedly) and never once thought the guy was off his rocker?
-His degree in International Relations is from Columbia. I like their sportswear, their district, and their coffee.... the University however is a piece of work. Columbia is an excellent university. Just because you don't like the politics that a lot of Columbia faculty may represent doesn't make the quality of education is any less.

I'm not trying to change your mind about who you're going to vote for, but there are a lot of people voting against Obama for factually inaccurate reasons (he's a Muslim, hates America, wasn't born here etc.).

I think this campaign of misinformation is terrible for democracy. Other issues like abortion (which I am 100% against as a means of birth control) are issues which are very unlikely to be affected by the President, regardless of who is elected.

I would also be interested in how you think Rev. Wright would directly impact his Presidency, if you think that he is just an awful liar.

[GigaBear]

Have you heard his stance on the issue of the Holocaust? He to this day does not believe it happened. He is dead pan serious when he says these things. There is no discussion, diplomacy or conversation with a mad man.



Like it or not, that "mad man" is the leader of a powerful and influential nation in the world landscape. I agree he's off his rocker, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous. Not talking to him certainly doesn't make him any less dangerous.

[Volunteer]

I'm not trying to change your mind about who you're going to vote for, but there are a lot of people voting against Obama for factually inaccurate reasons (he's a Muslim, hates America, wasn't born here etc.).



I believe that those voting against Barack for factually inaccurate reasons is no greater in number than those voting against McCain with similar reasoning.

The media emphasizes the issue with Barack, but downplays it with McCain.

[Volunteer]

Like it or not, that "mad man" is the leader of a powerful and influential nation in the world landscape. I agree he's off his rocker, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous. Not talking to him certainly doesn't make him any less dangerous.

What would you talk to him about? And would you believe anything he says?:laugh::laugh:

[The Banterer]

I believe that those voting against Barack for factually inaccurate reasons is no greater in number than those voting against McCain with similar reasoning.

The media emphasizes the issue with Barack, but downplays it with McCain.

The only issue where I really hear people talk about voting against McCain (as opposed to for Obama) is in regards to his support of a lot of Bush's policies, something which he's admitted.

[Volunteer]

The only issue where I really hear people talk about voting against McCain (as opposed to for Obama) is in regards to his support of a lot of Bush's policies, something which he's admitted.

If the media doesn't cover it, you won't hear about it. Look at some of the blogs against McCain and I think you'll see the point. Unfortunately there are lots and lots of less than bright folks out there.

[atxtraveler]

I'm not trying to change your mind about who you're going to vote for, but there are a lot of people voting against Obama for factually inaccurate reasons (he's a Muslim, hates America, wasn't born here etc.).

I think this campaign of misinformation is terrible for democracy. Other issues like abortion (which I am 100% against as a means of birth control) are issues which are very unlikely to be affected by the President, regardless of who is elected.

I would also be interested in how you think Rev. Wright would directly impact his Presidency, if you think that he is just an awful liar.

In regard to Reverend Wright, my view is that we have an issue here in which I believe Obama's judgement is being called into question. If you are telling me that he is not influenced by a man who was his spiritual advisor for 20 years, then I will show you someone who does not pay much attention. If you are telling me that he has been listening to the indoctrination that goes on in Reverend Wright's church, then I will tell you that Obama will have some seriously racist views on the world today that will come out as a result of his election.

In regard to abortion, do I believe that the next POTUS will actively lobby to change existing laws on the books, no, I do not. But do I make my decision on who I vote for in the next election based on how I view their personal moral code? Absolutely. Anyone who will scream at the top of his lungs opposing the war in Iraq because Bush called for it (the sending on a volunteer army), yet be in agreement to end the life involuntarily of an unborn child.... has some serious moral ethics issues, and that will in fact influence my vote.

On the topic of the war... how quickly you allow POTUS to change their mind... For MONTHS, Obama talked about how he opposed the war from the beginning and how he would pull people out as soon as he was elected... then miraculously, when an advisor told him that this would not get him elected, he opted for different platform, one that was more condusive to the centrist view.

Columbia... I don't have to garnish any credence to its status. The only thing I personally think it has going for it is that it is an accredited university. So is Texas Tech.... oh wait.

Like it or not, that "mad man" is the leader of a powerful and influential nation in the world landscape. I agree he's off his rocker, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous. Not talking to him certainly doesn't make him any less dangerous.

Osama Bin Laden is the proclaimed leader of the Taliban, which technically controls the Torah Borah region of Afghanistan. Does this mean we have to give credence to his influence on the citizens of that region, and give him a spot at the table for negotiations?

Hitler was the official leader of the Nazi Party, during the event known as the Holocaust that Iran's President fails to remember. Did we need to sit down with him and have feigned interest in his thoughts on the Jews to know what needed to be done?

(Insert Any African Warlord Dictator)... each of these people have the potential to destroy nations with their leadership as well... is it a requirement for us to sit down and negotiate with them?

[SoTex]

This could not possibly be any more wrong and any more short-sighted. I suppose that instead of talking to him, we should just bomb Iran, right?

There are no other alternatives besides talking to him. If we're talking about buying him dinner and funding his military, that's one thing---but we're not. We're talking discussion, diplomacy, conversation. How you can possibly be against that REGARDLESS of who it is with is absolutely beyond me.






No offense, SoTex, you know I love you, but.....are you freaking kidding me? She didn't just make a mistake about one of the issues in her response---the entire thing was incomprehensible nonsense that had NOTHING to do with anything, much less the question asked.


I don't care if it was her first time in front of a camera in her entire life, that doesn't make her brains go out the window. Further, it wasn't her first question of the night--she had time to warm up.


There is no excuse for that nonsense. If I were voting, I would vote for McCain, but I was absolutely EMBARRASSED by Palin's response in that video. How anyone can be anything but appalled and embarrassed as an American is beyond me.

Giga,

To me she reacted as I, and many others, react when nervous. She rambled...on and on. Was it bad? Of course. But that is just one instance and the only one I know of so far for her. Will there be more? Definitely, but I hope and pray not that bad.

What about Biden saying FDR came on TV in the 20s to address the nation? What about Obama saying there are 57 states?

We all react differently when nervous. I seriously think she lost her train of thought and instead of stopping and pausing to think about it, she just kept talking until something triggered her memory.

Regardless it was terrible. I'm just not ready to go to the extremes of that judgmental commentator and call her clueless based on one response.

[The Banterer]

In regard to Reverend Wright, my view is that we have an issue here in which I believe Obama's judgement is being called into question. If you are telling me that he is not influenced by a man who was his spiritual advisor for 20 years, then I will show you someone who does not pay much attention. If you are telling me that he has been listening to the indoctrination that goes on in Reverend Wright's church, then I will tell you that Obama will have some seriously racist views on the world today that will come out as a result of his election.

In regard to abortion, do I believe that the next POTUS will actively lobby to change existing laws on the books, no, I do not. But do I make my decision on who I vote for in the next election based on how I view their personal moral code? Absolutely. Anyone who will scream at the top of his lungs opposing the war in Iraq because Bush called for it (the sending on a volunteer army), yet be in agreement to end the life involuntarily of an unborn child.... has some serious moral ethics issues, and that will in fact influence my vote.

On the topic of the war... how quickly you allow POTUS to change their mind... For MONTHS, Obama talked about how he opposed the war from the beginning and how he would pull people out as soon as he was elected... then miraculously, when an advisor told him that this would not get him elected, he opted for different platform, one that was more condusive to the centrist view.

Columbia... I don't have to garnish any credence to its status. The only thing I personally think it has going for it is that it is an accredited university. So is Texas Tech.... oh wait.



Osama Bin Laden is the proclaimed leader of the Taliban, which technically controls the Torah Borah region of Afghanistan. Does this mean we have to give credence to his influence on the citizens of that region, and give him a spot at the table for negotiations?

Hitler was the official leader of the Nazi Party, during the event known as the Holocaust that Iran's President fails to remember. Did we need to sit down with him and have feigned interest in his thoughts on the Jews to know what needed to be done?

(Insert Any African Warlord Dictator)... each of these people have the potential to destroy nations with their leadership as well... is it a requirement for us to sit down and negotiate with them?

Rev. Wright - So you think Obama is a liar? It's alright if you do, but we need to be clear about what's being said.

Abortion - This probably deserves its own thread, because it is a very complicated issue. I understand your position that it makes the man, but I personally don't vote on issues where policy change is very unlikely.

Iraq - I'd rather have a president who is willing to adapt than one who is stubborn in his positions. Obama's position has always basically been to get the troops back as quickly as possible. Reports of the surge's success have made him shy away on rhetoric, but from my perspective his actual position hasn't changed much.

Iran - Just because diplomacy doesn't always work isn't a reason to not make every attempt to use it instead of military action. This idea that we'd be giving the man credibility by talking to him is American arrogance at its finest, because it is implying that the United States is somehow intrinsically more valuable than Iran, which is not the case.

I take a very isolationist stance to American intervention in the affairs of other nations, so I don't think it's the US government's responsibility to fix the world. When a nation's affairs could affect us, as Iran's could, I do think it is important to develop as non-confrontational relationship is possible. Military action should always be a last resort, not as an easy option.

[atxtraveler]

Rev. Wright - So you think Obama is a liar? It's alright if you do, but we need to be clear about what's being said.

Abortion - This probably deserves its own thread, because it is a very complicated issue. I understand your position that it makes the man, but I personally don't vote on issues where policy change is very unlikely.

Iraq - I'd rather have a president who is willing to adapt than one who is stubborn in his positions. Obama's position has always basically been to get the troops back as quickly as possible. Reports of the surge's success have made him shy away on rhetoric, but from my perspective his actual position hasn't changed much.

Iran - Just because diplomacy doesn't always work isn't a reason to not make every attempt to use it instead of military action. This idea that we'd be giving the man credibility by talking to him is American arrogance at its finest, because it is implying that the United States is somehow intrinsically more valuable than Iran, which is not the case.

I take a very isolationist stance to American intervention in the affairs of other nations, so I don't think it's the US government's responsibility to fix the world. When a nation's affairs could affect us, as Iran's could, I do think it is important to develop as non-confrontational relationship is possible. Military action should always be a last resort, not as an easy option.

Sure, I am in fact calling Obama a liar on one of two accounts in regard to Rev. Wright... he either is a liar about his church attendance in order to gain respect of conservative voters, or he is a liar about the amount of interaction he had with the church, as Wright's radical views did not in any way rub off on him in 20 years.

Iran - I agree military action is not the best course of action, but we certainly don't need to embrace this country in any way.

You and I agree that the nation should not be in a state of international peace keeping. I personally think we should commit a certain number of troops to things like the UN, but we certainly do not need to go fight battles alone.

[BaylorPhillie]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/36863/saturday-night-live-couric--palin-open

[Volunteer]

Iraq - I'd rather have a president who is willing to adapt than one who is stubborn in his positions. Obama's position has always basically been to get the troops back as quickly as possible. Reports of the surge's success have made him shy away on rhetoric, but from my perspective his actual position hasn't changed much.

Barack's judgement vis-a-vis Iraq has been awful. First he said he would pull out the troops.....basically tuck our tail and run. What an incredibly stupid thing to do. Simply proves to the terrorists that the U.S. has no real staying power, i.e., we're not really committed. Just bloody our nose a little and wait us out. We'll quit. We did this in Vietnam and it trashed the our international standing for years and years. We screwed over the South Vietnamese who attempted to assist the U.S. in building a democratic government. We dumped them. When we left the North Vietnamese took over and killed them.

We're in a war. One that was voted on and approved by both the legislative and executive branches of our government. Maybe we shouldn't have gone in, but that's a moot point. We need to win. Then we can get out.

He even opposed the surge of troops in Iraq. Said it would never work. Like Harry Reid, Barack is hell bent on losing the war. He was wrong. He is still wrong.

Iran - Just because diplomacy doesn't always work isn't a reason to not make every attempt to use it instead of military action. This idea that we'd be giving the man credibility by talking to him is American arrogance at its finest, because it is implying that the United States is somehow intrinsically more valuable than Iran, which is not the case.

Not referring to the basic value of the human population of Iran, but how is the United States as a nation NOT instrinsically more valuable than Iran? By every metric, the U.S. is a better place. As Will Sonnett said (Guns of Will Sonnett), "that ain't brag - just fact" Despite what the liberals tell you, the United States is the greatest country in the world.

I take a very isolationist stance to American intervention in the affairs of other nations, so I don't think it's the US government's responsibility to fix the world. When a nation's affairs could affect us, as Iran's could, I do think it is important to develop as non-confrontational relationship is possible. Military action should always be a last resort, not as an easy option.

We simply don't have the luxury of being isolationists.

[HillCountryBEAR]

and Biden's fdr and television comments are ignored by the media while they hammer on Palin?????? makes no sense to me.

[Texas Golfer]

and Biden's fdr and television comments are ignored by the media while they hammer on Palin?????? makes no sense to me.

As I've said earlier, 2008 is the year that true journalism died in America.

[The Banterer]

and Biden's fdr and television comments are ignored by the media while they hammer on Palin?????? makes no sense to me.

I think a distinction can be made between misspeaking and coming off as totally uninformed in an interview. Say what you want, but the mainstream media has never gone after Bush for his wide aray of misspeaking. Now, basically every comedian has, so it would be easy to think from the exposure they've gotten that my statement can't be true, but I've never seen CNN, MSNBC, Fox News or any of the networks go after Bush for misspeaking.

What has caused the stir about Palin is that it wasn't her failure to communicate, but really the fact that she didn't even try to communicate an answer. With Bush (who I actually think is a pretty brilliant speaker from a political perspective) and Biden, you understood what they meant. With Palin, it's unclear whether she was trying to communicate anything, or just try to talk her way to the next question.

[GigaBear]

and Biden's fdr and television comments are ignored by the media while they hammer on Palin?????? makes no sense to me.



IMO, this has nothing to do with anyone else. I'm not measuring Palin against anything except my own personal idea of how comfortable I would be with her as VP of the United States of America. That interview was an absolute disaster, and it wouldn't matter if Biden had misspoken 47,145 times that the media hasn't mentioned---it doesn't make her statements any less of an absolute cluster****.

[The Banterer]

We simply don't have the luxury of being isolationists.

I understand that we're in a war, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't learn from our mistakes. We shouldn't have gone to Iraq in 2003. We know that now, because we know that the reasons we used to go in were not true. The argument is made that Iraq is justified because Saddam was a bad man. Close your eyes and point to a country in Africa and chances are that whoever is in power there is probably doing some messed up stuff, so unless we are going to try and spread democracy to every country with crappy leaders in the world, we shouldn't do it at all.

Iraq isn't won yet. During Vietnam there was always talk about how the tide was turning, and we basically dominated the battlefield. In the end, we bailed on it, which was probably the best decision at the time, especially considering that we were largely fighting against the people we were rescuing.

Sometimes it's best to look at a mistake, and try to correct it, even if it does hurt your pride. Things seem to have turned in our favor in Iraq, which is great, but we'll have to wait until we can declare it successful.

Also, it can't be neglected that we've basically dropped the ball in Afghanistan to focus on Iraq. It seems that we're proving our ineffectiveness in the War on Terror by forgetting to go about the root of the problem.

As far as Iran goes, I basically view all human life as equal, which sounds simple, but is a practically difficult philosophy to embrace because of the emotion inherent in the issue. I don't think the US is more valuable than Iran per capita for this reason. I obviously have a fondness for the US that I will likely never have for Iran, since it's my home, but that doesn't mean that we have any more intrinsic value than them IMO.

This is all straight-up opinion, but I base it on trying to view myself as just another person in the world. There are 6 billion other people like me. I find that thinking of it like that is what gives me my current perspective.

[Texas Golfer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

[GigaBear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws


Again, you fail to address the issue.


The two clips you posted are clips of Obama MISSPEAKING. Both are nothing more than him saying a few wrong words---neither are a lack of UNDERSTANDING.


What Palin demonstrated in the video posted---and has since demonstrated AT LEAST three other times that I have seen---is that she has absolutely ZERO UNDERSTANDING of one of the biggest issues facing the country right now. Not only does she have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of that issue, she seems to have no remose for her COMPLETE AND TOTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of that issue.


When you can show me an extended example of where Obama, Biden, or anyone else show complete and total ignorance about a particular issue, then we might be able to talk. Until then, you have made absolutely no worthy argument.

[The Banterer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Dude misspoke, it happens. There's a difference in making a mistake and not being able to answer a question at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/palin-a-journalism-major_n_130707.html

Crappy source I know, but they're just discussing stuff straight from the interview.

[Bigshot628]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

i can use youtube too....

fvuDdeFMG9Q

[Bigshot628]

fast forward to 3:40ish if you want to get to the part of the interview yall are currently talking about. the whole thing is funny though.

__2bNxdiE6c

[BaylorPhillie]

fast forward to 3:40ish if you want to get to the part of the interview yall are currently talking about. the whole thing is funny though.

__2bNxdiE6c

that is the link I did, except non-Y-tubed.

[baylorles]

Again, you fail to address the issue.


The two clips you posted are clips of Obama MISSPEAKING. Both are nothing more than him saying a few wrong words---neither are a lack of UNDERSTANDING.


What Palin demonstrated in the video posted---and has since demonstrated AT LEAST three other times that I have seen---is that she has absolutely ZERO UNDERSTANDING of one of the biggest issues facing the country right now. Not only does she have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of that issue, she seems to have no remose for her COMPLETE AND TOTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of that issue.


When you can show me an extended example of where Obama, Biden, or anyone else show complete and total ignorance about a particular issue, then we might be able to talk. Until then, you have made absolutely no worthy argument.
It's exhausting having to explain the obvious, isn't it? That's how they wear down those who argue with them.

[nein51]

I am so lost, do you recognize that she is a VICE Presidential candidate? As in, least important position on the ticket?

Comparing Palin to Obama makes no sense at all.

My personal belief is that all of the 4 people are bright, all make mistakes...and none of them know a damn thing about the economy.

On a related note, anyone see the Obama health care commercial? I know he was touting coverage for everyone but the commercial makes it sound like there is really no change to the current system "fight the insurance companies to lower rates"...well who the hell DOESNT do that??

[atxtraveler]

I think a distinction can be made between misspeaking and coming off as totally uninformed in an interview. Say what you want, but the mainstream media has never gone after Bush for his wide aray of misspeaking. Now, basically every comedian has, so it would be easy to think from the exposure they've gotten that my statement can't be true, but I've never seen CNN, MSNBC, Fox News or any of the networks go after Bush for misspeaking.

What has caused the stir about Palin is that it wasn't her failure to communicate, but really the fact that she didn't even try to communicate an answer. With Bush (who I actually think is a pretty brilliant speaker from a political perspective) and Biden, you understood what they meant. With Palin, it's unclear whether she was trying to communicate anything, or just try to talk her way to the next question.

Dude... you say MSNBC.... are you not aware that Olbermann considers himself a journalist for this station?

He pokes at Bush nearly every day for misspeak.

You are off on this one.

[Texas Golfer]

When Obama makes a mistake, it's misspeaking. When Palin makes a mistake, she's clueless.

Biden says FDR came on the TV and spoke to the nation at the end of the "Great Depression". But, since FDR wasn't the president at that time and there were no TVs, did he misspeak or is he clueless? I'm betting Giga, Banter, Les, and Biggy will continue to say that Democrat candidates misspeak and Republican candidates are clueless with nothing to substantiate that notion.

But let's get back to the Palin "interview". Nobody knows what the "Bush Doctrine" is. There's no such overall policy as the "Bush Doctrine". What was the "Clinton Doctrine"? If John Kerry was asked what the "Clinton Doctrine" was, could he come up with a legitimate answer?

This interview was nothing more than "gotcha" journalism and I use the word "journalism" lightly. Gibson looked down his nose at her throughout the so-called interview.

[The Banterer]

Dude... you say MSNBC.... are you not aware that Olbermann considers himself a journalist for this station?

He pokes at Bush nearly every day for misspeak.

You are off on this one.

Olberman is the O'Reilly for the other side. Doesn't matter what he considers himself, he doesn't report the news.

[GigaBear]

When Obama makes a mistake, it's misspeaking. When Palin makes a mistake, she's clueless.

Biden says FDR came on the TV and spoke to the nation at the end of the "Great Depression". But, since FDR wasn't the president at that time and there were no TVs, did he misspeak or is he clueless? I'm betting Giga, Banter, Les, and Biggy will continue to say that Democrat candidates misspeak and Republican candidates are clueless with nothing to substantiate that notion.


"Nothing to substantiate that notion."

You mean like absolutely NONE of her answer having ANYTHING to do with the issue at hand.

The point here is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Biden's mistake had to do with a few DETAILS of the argument he was making; Palin demonstrated absolutely ZERO knowledge of the issue at hand. Zero. How you fail to see that is beyond me.


But let's get back to the Palin "interview". Nobody knows what the "Bush Doctrine" is. There's no such overall policy as the "Bush Doctrine". What was the "Clinton Doctrine"? If John Kerry was asked what the "Clinton Doctrine" was, could he come up with a legitimate answer?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

One quick Google search. Something that I knew about already, but I figured I would prove actually exists since you don't seem to believe it does.

That was easy enough.

This interview was nothing more than "gotcha" journalism and I use the word "journalism" lightly. Gibson looked down his nose at her throughout the so-called interview.


We aren't talking about the Gibson interview, we're talking about the Couric interview. I have seen the Gibson interview but didn't watch it in detail like I did the Palin interview.


You know I love you, TG, and you also know that I'm a conservative. The problem is, deep down, you also know that I'm right on this one, you just refuse to recognize it.

[atxtraveler]

Olberman is the O'Reilly for the other side. Doesn't matter what he considers himself, he doesn't report the news.

Respectfully, he (as well as MSNBC) considers himself a journalist. Your point is invalidated for a least MSNBC.

[The Banterer]

But let's get back to the Palin "interview". Nobody knows what the "Bush Doctrine" is. There's no such overall policy as the "Bush Doctrine". What was the "Clinton Doctrine"? If John Kerry was asked what the "Clinton Doctrine" was, could he come up with a legitimate answer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lf1I4eFTw

Guess it isn't gotcha journalism when John McCain is asked about. I can

You must be right though, Charles Gibson wouldn't ask that sort of question to anyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsLeswQ7-J0

[The Banterer]

Respectfully, he (as well as MSNBC) considers himself a journalist. Your point is invalidated for a least MSNBC.

He's a journalist in the same way that O'Reilly is a journalist, or that Nancy Grace is a journalist. They're entertainers, which is why they don't report real news. They might talk about it, but you don't see any of those people actually breaking or reporting it.

You can't demonize an entire network because of one or a handful of their personalities. Fox's personalities show more bias in general than any other network, but they still have good news coverage.

[Texas Golfer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

One quick Google search. Something that I knew about already, but I figured I would prove actually exists since you don't seem to believe it does.

That was easy enough.

The Bush Doctrine is a PHRASE used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to aggressively secure itself from countries that harbour or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

The Bush Doctrine has been formulated as a collection of strategy principles, practical policy decisions, and a set of logical rationales and ideas for guiding United States foreign policy

The "Doctrine" is a phrase to lump a collection of rationales and ideas. It is not one single document.

I don't think Obama nor Biden could answer the question correctly since, without all of the rationales and all of the ideas, the answer would be an incorrect one.

But, in any case, Bush is not her running mate. His "rationales" and his "ideas" are not of any consequence in this election. The next administration will make their own.

It was Gibson's attempt to lock McCain/Palin with Bush which has been the Obama/Biden strategy in this election. Gibson was merely being the good disciple to the liberal media's attempts to try to discredit her. And, by someone who claims to be a conservative, you've bought into it. A true conservative would never support the most liberal candidate in history. I'm not talking partisanship; I'm talking ideologies.

[Texas Golfer]

Fox's personalities show more bias in general than any other network, but they still have good news coverage.

:laugh: I have to laugh because opinion polls widely contradict this. But isn't that the good thing about opinions? You can say what you want without having to back it up.

[Texas Golfer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lf1I4eFTw

Guess it isn't gotcha journalism when John McCain is asked about. I can

You must be right though, Charles Gibson wouldn't ask that sort of question to anyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsLeswQ7-J0

Thank you for proving my point. Each person had a different explanation summarizing what they believe is the central theme to the many rationales and ideas, to include Palin. But, for some reason, only Palin is expected to recite ALL of the rationales and ideas that make up this PRASE "The Bush Doctrine".

[GigaBear]

The "Doctrine" is a phrase to lump a collection of rationales and ideas. It is not one single document.

I don't think Obama nor Biden could answer the question correctly since, without all of the rationales and all of the ideas, the answer would be an incorrect one.

But, in any case, Bush is not her running mate. His "rationales" and his "ideas" are not of any consequence in this election. The next administration will make their own.

It was Gibson's attempt to lock McCain/Palin with Bush which has been the Obama/Biden strategy in this election. Gibson was merely being the good disciple to the liberal media's attempts to try to discredit her. And, by someone who claims to be a conservative, you've bought into it. A true conservative would never support the most liberal candidate in history. I'm not talking partisanship; I'm talking ideologies.




Sweet. Now we go from parsing words to.....parsing words.

You still fail to realize that this thread was not even started in reference to the Gibson interview. You have also yet to make any comment about the cluster**** that this thread is referencing. Wonder why that is.....????

Further, you could not be more wrong about me; show me ANYWHERE that I have supported Obama and Biden. I have never mentioned one word in SUPPORT of them. That's the problem--instead of thinking logically about a situation and an issue, you draw a line in the sand and make it a partisian issue. This isn't a partisian issue---this an issue of Sarah Palin embarrassing herself, her party, and her country with a complete and total lack of knowledge of the biggest issue currently facing the United States of America.

Come back to me as soon as you have a real, non-partisian argument.

[ChipOC]

But let's get back to the Palin "interview". Nobody knows what the "Bush Doctrine" is. There's no such overall policy as the "Bush Doctrine". What was the "Clinton Doctrine"? If John Kerry was asked what the "Clinton Doctrine" was, could he come up with a legitimate answer?

Screw anything that moves?


You know I love you, TG, and you also know that I'm a conservative. The problem is, deep down, you also know that I'm right on this one, you just refuse to recognize it.
You're a conservative? wow. What am I then, a right wing nazi?

[The Banterer]

:laugh: I have to laugh because opinion polls widely contradict this. But isn't that the good thing about opinions? You can say what you want without having to back it up.

What polls?

[Texas Golfer]

Sweet. Now we go from parsing words to.....parsing words.

You still fail to realize that this thread was not even started in reference to the Gibson interview. You have also yet to make any comment about the cluster**** that this thread is referencing. Wonder why that is.....????

Further, you could not be more wrong about me; show me ANYWHERE that I have supported Obama and Biden. I have never mentioned one word in SUPPORT of them. That's the problem--instead of thinking logically about a situation and an issue, you draw a line in the sand and make it a partisian issue. This isn't a partisian issue---this an issue of Sarah Palin embarrassing herself, her party, and her country with a complete and total lack of knowledge of the biggest issue currently facing the United States of America.

Come back to me as soon as you have a real, non-partisian argument.

You say Palin embarrassed herself and her party but give Obama (57 states) and Biden (FDR on TV about the Great Depression) passes? Few could answer Palin's questions but even Little Golfer was quick to point out both of Obama's and Biden's mistaken answers. But, for some reason, Obama and Biden don't embarrass their party. Could it be that Democrats rally behind their candidate no matter what and justify every incorrect answer and every incorrect position and Republicans criticize their own?

Whatever you say. Nobody is going to change anyone else's minds.

[Texas Golfer]

What polls?

There were some polls released last week and, don't quote my numbers because I've slept since then, something like 80% felt MSNBC was biased for liberals, 70% felt CNN was biased for liberals and 55% felt FoxNews was biased for conservatives.

[The Banterer]

There were some polls released last week and, don't quote my numbers because I've slept since then, something like 80% felt MSNBC was biased for liberals, 70% felt CNN was biased for liberals and 55% felt FoxNews was biased for conservatives.

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."

http://stateofthemedia.com/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5

[Texas Golfer]

http://stateofthemedia.com/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5

Perhaps that was the case more than two (and three) years ago. I'm talking about last week.

[The Banterer]

Perhaps that was the case more than two (and three) years ago. I'm talking about last week.

Two years ago with source > last week with no source.

[atxtraveler]

"Nothing to substantiate that notion."

You mean like absolutely NONE of her answer having ANYTHING to do with the issue at hand.

The point here is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Biden's mistake had to do with a few DETAILS of the argument he was making; Palin demonstrated absolutely ZERO knowledge of the issue at hand. Zero. How you fail to see that is beyond me.


[font=Comic Sans MS][size=3][b][color=DarkRed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

One quick Google search. Something that I knew about already, but I figured I would prove actually exists since you don't seem to believe it does.

That was easy enough.




We aren't talking about the Gibson interview, we're talking about the Couric interview. I have seen the Gibson interview but didn't watch it in detail like I did the Palin interview.


You know I love you, TG, and you also know that I'm a conservative. The problem is, deep down, you also know that I'm right on this one, you just refuse to recognize it.

Giga.... Wikipedia is not fact. As much as we would all like it to be, it is not.

The Bush Doctrine is something that was themed by the liberal media. I for one am absolutely glad Palin didn't answer that. She is not going to comment on a comment by a reporter. If they would have asked her about Bush's foreign policy decisions regarding Iraq, they likely would have got an answer. Its like asked you if you would like to talk about the Pickens Doctrine. I just made it up a couple minutes ago, but you should know about it.

[The Banterer]

Giga.... Wikipedia is not fact. As much as we would all like it to be, it is not.

The Bush Doctrine is something that was themed by the liberal media. I for one am absolutely glad Palin didn't answer that. She is not going to comment on a comment by a reporter. If they would have asked her about Bush's foreign policy decisions regarding Iraq, they likely would have got an answer. Its like asked you if you would like to talk about the Pickens Doctrine. I just made it up a couple minutes ago, but you should know about it.

McCain knows about it, the other Republicans who ran in the primary know about. I can't find the YouTube clip, but I've seen video of Obama addressing questions about it.

This wasn't some sort of trap set for Palin, and even after Gibson explained it, she didn't really answer the question.

[Bigshot628]

I am so lost, do you recognize that she is a VICE Presidential candidate? As in, least important position on the ticket?



not according to Matt Damon and he wrote Good Will Hunting...

C6urw_PWHYk

[ChipOC]

McCain knows about it, the other Republicans who ran in the primary know about. I can't find the YouTube clip, but I've seen video of Obama addressing questions about it.

This wasn't some sort of trap set for Palin, and even after Gibson explained it, she didn't really answer the question.
When I saw the interview, I heard the question and didn't remember what it was until Gibson explained it. But I did recognize it then. She probably should have known about it. It is almost like since the nomination, they have stuffed her head with so much that she is overwhelmed at times trying to sort through it all before she answers.

[Bigshot628]

I'm betting Giga, Banter, Les, and Biggy will continue to say that Democrat candidates misspeak and Republican candidates are clueless with nothing to substantiate that notion.




TG, I'm not sure why you lumped me in just because I posted some humorous videos about your precious Palin. I NEVER come on these boards for a couple reasons.

1. Politics don't interest me
2. I think people that allign themselves w/political parties are humorous
3. It's an argument that will never end. You won't wake up one day and say "hey, i think Giga and the Banterer are right, what an idiot i've been" and the same goes for them.

Do me a favor and stop assuming things about good ol' Bigshot huh? thx.

I'll let Chris Rock do my speaking for me.

V2c7ZZNcWsA

[Texas Golfer]

not according to Matt Damon and he wrote Good Will Hunting...

C6urw_PWHYk

Like most of the Hollywood elite, Damon is showing his ignorance. The dinosaur comment, as well as the book banning were debunked.

[SoTex]

2. I think people that allign themselves w/political parties are humorous

Huh? What? So do you really find 90%+ of American citizens humorous?

I don't. Honestly, only about 60% of people I've met qualify as humorous. Only 10-20% are truly funny.

[Volunteer]

Banterer - I read through the link you posted to the journalism organization. Fact is, it their "opinion" that Fox news is more biased that the others. I read the footnotes, there is no objective criteria. Frankly, I don't know how you would put together objective criteria - so I'm not faulting this particular organization.

Bottom line here is that bias is generally quite subtle. Word choices, phrasing of statements, editing of quotes all play a role. I watch all the news networks and I firmly believe that MSNBC has a significant liberal agenda. CNN is somewhat less liberally oriented. Fox tends to be more conservative, but not nearly as far right as MSNBC is left. But that's only my opinion based on personal observation. There is no subjective criteria.

[Volunteer]

Just for reference: There isn't a White House paper anywhere titled THE BUSH DOCTRINE. There isn't a book with that title. Bush has never referred to a BUSH DOCTRINE. It appears that some of the media have assigned the name to his strategies.

I consider myself to be pretty well informed, and I have never heard of the Bush Doctrine. Now, I did know his feelings about pre-emptively taking out threats and the "if you harbor terrorists we will treat you like a terrorist as well" strategy but as far as there being an offical BUSH DOCTRINE..........well that just ain't right. There ain't nuthin' official about it.

[Texas Golfer]

Banterer - I read through the link you posted to the journalism organization. Fact is, it their "opinion" that Fox news is more biased that the others. I read the footnotes, there is no objective criteria. Frankly, I don't know how you would put together objective criteria - so I'm not faulting this particular organization.

Bottom line here is that bias is generally quite subtle. Word choices, phrasing of statements, editing of quotes all play a role. I watch all the news networks and I firmly believe that MSNBC has a significant liberal agenda. CNN is somewhat less liberally oriented. Fox tends to be more conservative, but not nearly as far right as MSNBC is left. But that's only my opinion based on personal observation. There is no subjective criteria.

Your opinion falls right in line with the polls I saw last week. So, apparently, the majority of America agrees with you.

[Texas Golfer]

Just for reference: There isn't a White House paper anywhere titled THE BUSH DOCTRINE. There isn't a book with that title. Bush has never referred to a BUSH DOCTRINE. It appears that some of the media have assigned the name to his strategies.

I consider myself to be pretty well informed, and I have never heard of the Bush Doctrine. Now, I did know his feelings about pre-emptively taking out threats and the "if you harbor terrorists we will treat you like a terrorist as well" strategy but as far as there being an offical BUSH DOCTRINE..........well that just ain't right. There ain't nuthin' official about it.

If you ask 10 politicians in Washington "What is the Bush Doctrine?", you'll probably get 10 different answers not that any of them would be wrong, per se. Palin's response to Gibson was actually correct when she tried to get him to narrow the parameters of the question. Since the phrase "The Bush Doctrine" is made up of several rationales and ideas, "In what regard, Charlie?" was not a bad response. It was a "gotcha" question.

[GigaBear]

If you ask 10 politicians in Washington "What is the Bush Doctrine?", you'll probably get 10 different answers not that any of them would be wrong, per se. Palin's response to Gibson was actually correct when she tried to get him to narrow the parameters of the question. Since the phrase "The Bush Doctrine" is made up of several rationales and ideas, "In what regard, Charlie?" was not a bad response. It was a "gotcha" question.


And as of yet, 3 pages and 85+ posts into this thread, you have not one solitary time referenced back to what the point of this thread was.


Please---explain Sarah Palin's monumental cluster**** for me. Please. I can't WAIT to hear this rationalization. SoTex gave it a valiant effort, but failed miserably in his rationalization. What is your attempt?


I have an open mind. I'm listening. Lay it on me.

[Texas Golfer]

And as of yet, 3 pages and 85+ posts into this thread, you have not one solitary time referenced back to what the point of this thread was.


Please---explain Sarah Palin's monumental cluster**** for me. Please. I can't WAIT to hear this rationalization. SoTex gave it a valiant effort, but failed miserably in his rationalization. What is your attempt?


I have an open mind. I'm listening. Lay it on me.

Your mind is far from open. You've made up your mind regarding the governor and nothing anyone can say is going to change it.

The point of the thread is whether or not she is "clueless about everything" and I've answered that several times. You have just chosen to ignore it.

I agree with Wolf. It wasn't her best answer. But she knows there's not 57 states in the USA and she knows that FDR wasn't president during the Great Depression and that there were no TVs at that time.

There. You got your answer. But your claim to be a conservative is not fooling anyone. Obama is the #1 most liberal member of the Senate and his running mate is #3 and, instead of attacking their liberal views, you've chosen to attack the most conservative of the three candidates.

[Bigshot628]

Huh? What? So do you really find 90%+ of American citizens humorous?

I don't. Honestly, only about 60% of people I've met qualify as humorous. Only 10-20% are truly funny.

humorous in the sense that I laugh at them, not that they make me laugh

But your claim to be a conservative is not fooling anyone.

he's conservative, he just doesn't agree with you... that can happen can't it?

[The Banterer]

Your mind is far from open. You've made up your mind regarding the governor and nothing anyone can say is going to change it.

The point of the thread is whether or not she is "clueless about everything" and I've answered that several times. You have just chosen to ignore it.

I agree with Wolf. It wasn't her best answer. But she knows there's not 57 states in the USA and she knows that FDR wasn't president during the Great Depression and that there were no TVs at that time.

There. You got your answer. But your claim to be a conservative is not fooling anyone. Obama is the #1 most liberal member of the Senate and his running mate is #3 and, instead of attacking their liberal views, you've chosen to attack the most conservative of the three candidates.

I've accepted at this point that this discussion is going nowhere, but to say that Giga isn't a conservative because he's concerned about Palin's qualifications is beyond absurd. I've gathered that he is supporting McCain, so why shouldn't he have an opinion about McCain's VP choice? Is he just supposed to get caught in party politics and worship anything red, because that's about as unAmerican as Big Ben.

I enjoy talking politics with you, maybe it's because I'm a masochist, or maybe it reminds me of talking politics with my dad (except he hates both parties, just the Republicans less), but you have a tendency to bring personal judgments into the discussion, which can be very distracting. The example here is that Giga is not a conservative. Now I don't know what his political stances are, so maybe he's a stinky-cheese-eating socialist, I don't know. All anyone can do in a forum like this is trust each other. He says he's a conservative who's voting McCain, I believe him because I don't have any reason not to. One of the most offensive things you can say to someone, is to call them a liar when there isn't any hard evidence.

I'm not trying to gang up on you at all, or say that you're a bad person, or anything like that. I just think that sometimes you don't understand how frustrating some of the personal things you say can be.

All that said, I look forward to disagreeing with you more as the election approaches. It'll be worth it when I can gloat after Barr pulls of the stunning upset. :D

[SoTex]

humorous in the sense that I laugh at them, not that they make me laugh


So I hope you're saying you laugh at yourself. By aligning with a party you're able to establish a baseline of sorts. I take a look at issues and see where my thoughts on those issues pair versus the two major parties (heck, I even give libertarianism a chance). This then allows me to see a candidate and compare them to the party line. As it stands I'm aligned with the republican party on most issues and libertarian on others with democrat on very few. Therefore I consider myself a republican.

I'm also a republican based on the literal definition. A republican, by definition, is someone who believes an elected official should act in the best interest of the constituents using reason and judgment. A democrat, conversely, believes that the elected official should poll the constituents and vote accordingly. Of course, those definitions have been thrown to the dogs as most politicians act based on polls (showing they have lost any guts they may have had).

Ok, now go ahead and laugh at me.

[atxtraveler]

I'm also a republican based on the literal definition. A republican, by definition, is someone who believes an elected official should act in the best interest of the constituents using reason and judgment. A democrat, conversely, believes that the elected official should poll the constituents and vote accordingly. Of course, those definitions have been thrown to the dogs as most politicians act based on polls (showing they have lost any guts they may have had).

So basically, you hire a republican to use the judgment God gave him and the constituents voted for..... or you hire a Democrat to be good time Charlie and vote whichever way the short term wind is blowing?

[SoTex]

Exactly.

[GigaBear]

Your mind is far from open. You've made up your mind regarding the governor and nothing anyone can say is going to change it.

The point of the thread is whether or not she is "clueless about everything" and I've answered that several times. You have just chosen to ignore it.

I agree with Wolf. It wasn't her best answer. But she knows there's not 57 states in the USA and she knows that FDR wasn't president during the Great Depression and that there were no TVs at that time.

There. You got your answer. But your claim to be a conservative is not fooling anyone. Obama is the #1 most liberal member of the Senate and his running mate is #3 and, instead of attacking their liberal views, you've chosen to attack the most conservative of the three candidates.


"It wasn't her best answer." That's all you have to say for one of the worst answers I have ever heard in response to any question by someone running for public office. Furthermore, you then go back to a stupid comparison that you KEEP referring to like a broken record which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND.

You do nothing but spout a party line. You don't care about anything but protecting your precious party. You care NOTHING for reasonable discussion about what is best for the country, you only care about making sure "your guy" is portrayed in the best light possible.

That, in my opinion, is downright unamerican. You don't care for the well-being of the country, you don't examine a candidates qualifications, you only care that your PARTY looks as good as possible, and you're going to protect them to the end.

That, to me, is the saddest part. As I've said no less than a dozen times--if I were going to vote, I would be voting for John McCain, no questions asked. It's never even been an issue in my mind. You, however, seem to think that because I question things, that I'm not a conservative or not a Republican.

Maybe you're right. Maybe if that's how a Republican or a Conservative is supposed to think--nothing but good things about his party, bury his head in the sand regardless of the issue--then maybe I'm not a conservative or a Republican. I prefer to use my brain to determine things, not my party affiliation.

You guys keep burying your head in the sand. That's exactly what has gotten us into this cluster**** we're in right now---people on both sides of the aisle failing to see the forest for the trees, failing to think about what might be best for the country instead of what will get them elected, failing to use their ******* brains in a situation instead of following party lines.

Maybe that's why I'm such a big Ron Paul fan. He doesn't give two ***** about party lines or anything else---right or wrong, he uses his brain and says to hell with the party. He formulates his own opinions and his own ideas about what is best instead of just adopting the company line.

One of these days, this country is going to get itself into such a mess that we're left with no option but to use our brains. At that point, I'm wondering how many heads will explode because there's no longer a party line to tow.

[GigaBear]

I just think that sometimes you don't understand how frustrating some of the personal things you say can be.




This.

[atxtraveler]

"It wasn't her best answer." That's all you have to say for one of the worst answers I have ever heard in response to any question by someone running for public office. Furthermore, you then go back to a stupid comparison that you KEEP referring to like a broken record which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND.

You do nothing but spout a party line. You don't care about anything but protecting your precious party. You care NOTHING for reasonable discussion about what is best for the country, you only care about making sure "your guy" is portrayed in the best light possible.

That, in my opinion, is downright unamerican. You don't care for the well-being of the country, you don't examine a candidates qualifications, you only care that your PARTY looks as good as possible, and you're going to protect them to the end.

That, to me, is the saddest part. As I've said no less than a dozen times--if I were going to vote, I would be voting for John McCain, no questions asked. It's never even been an issue in my mind. You, however, seem to think that because I question things, that I'm not a conservative or not a Republican.

Maybe you're right. Maybe if that's how a Republican or a Conservative is supposed to think--nothing but good things about his party, bury his head in the sand regardless of the issue--then maybe I'm not a conservative or a Republican. I prefer to use my brain to determine things, not my party affiliation.

You guys keep burying your head in the sand. That's exactly what has gotten us into this cluster**** we're in right now---people on both sides of the aisle failing to see the forest for the trees, failing to think about what might be best for the country instead of what will get them elected, failing to use their ******* brains in a situation instead of following party lines.

Maybe that's why I'm such a big Ron Paul fan. He doesn't give two ***** about party lines or anything else---right or wrong, he uses his brain and says to hell with the party. He formulates his own opinions and his own ideas about what is best instead of just adopting the company line.

One of these days, this country is going to get itself into such a mess that we're left with no option but to use our brains. At that point, I'm wondering how many heads will explode because there's no longer a party line to tow.

Take a deep breath.

[Bigshot628]

So I hope you're saying you laugh at yourself. .

what political party have I aligned myself with?

[ChipOC]

Here's a Biden goof...

WASHINGTON — When Joe Biden tells voters he understands the threat posed by Afghan extremists, he dramatically illustrates one reason why: His helicopter was "forced down" on "the superhighway of terror." Actually, snow, not the enemy, persuaded the helicopter pilot to land and wait out a storm.
The Democratic vice presidential candidate has repeatedly left that part out, in an episode that Republicans hope will become an echo of Hillary Rodham Clinton's errant tale during the primaries of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.
Biden has made a number of questionable statements recently that, viewed in isolation, might not amount to much. But this is a man whose first presidential campaign collapsed 20 years ago after he told a story about coal miners in his family that he lifted without credit from a British politician.
Another Tall Tale? Biden Says He Was 'Shot At' in Iraq (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/30/unlike-clinton-biden-gets-pass-saying-shot-iraq/)
For complete campaign '08 coverage visit America's Election HQ (http://elections.foxnews.com/)
In a recent speech in Virginia coal country, Biden seemed to embellish his background once again. He declared, "I am a hard coal miner," which he's not and never has been. His spokesman, David Wade, said Biden was joking.

And looking back on his 1972 Senate campaign, he told Pennsylvania delegates at the Democratic convention that people from his hometown of Scranton, Pa., piled in up to 10 buses and drove to Wilmington, Del., to show him support. "Literally," he said, "there were hundreds of thousands of people."
THE HELICOPTER SPIN
In a Baltimore speech last week, Biden said: "If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where (Usama) bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."
Two days later, in Cincinnati, he said Al Qaeda has re-established a safe haven and it's not in Baghdad. "It's in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said, "where my helicopter was recently forced down."
At a Sept. 9, fundraiser, Biden addressed his national security credentials by talking about "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down. John McCain wants to know where bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That's where Al Qaida is. That's where bin Laden is."
THE FACTS: In February, Biden and fellow senators John Kerry and Chuck Hagel were flying in a helicopter over Afghanistan in a fact-finding trip when a snowstorm closed in.
"It went pretty blind, pretty fast and we were around some pretty dangerous ridges," Kerry told The Associated Press afterward. "So the pilot exercised his judgment that we were better off putting down there, and we all agreed."
He said the group waited for about three hours until a convoy with U.S. troops took them to Bagram Air Base.
"We sat up there and traded stories," Kerry joked. "We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to do it."
He added: "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."
The area was reported as not being under Taliban control. But Wade noted "it's the wild west out there" and the senators were transported under guard and with air cover from an F-16.
Though Biden never said his helicopter was shot at in Afghanistan, last year he asserted that he was "shot at" in Iraq. He amended that later, saying the quarters he was staying in while visiting Baghdad's protected Green Zone shook from a nearby blast, and "I was near where a shot landed."
The McCain campaign jumped on the Biden stories Wednesday, putting out a statement from a retired Black Hawk pilot saying there is no mistaking being shot at or forced down by the enemy.
But if Biden was not literally in the sights of the enemy in Iraq, he unquestionably went through several dicey situations verified by other lawmakers there, including the explosion of a mortar near the compound and his plane's evasive maneuvers while taking off, in response to a possible missile attack.
THE COAL SPIN: In a speech at a United Mine Workers fish fry in Castlewood, Va., on Sept. 21, Biden told the miners he is one of them. "Hope you won't hold it against me, but I am a hard coal miner — anthracite coal, Scranton, Pennsylvania, that's where I was born and raised," he said.
Biden mentioned his great-grandfather, a mining engineer who became a state senator in the early 1900s.
THE FACTS: Biden was born in Scranton, moved to Delaware at age 10 and has never had experience in the mines. His father worked in the oil business and ran a Delaware car dealership.
Biden's comment was reported at face value in press accounts from the event. Wade said it wasn't meant to be taken literally.
"Judging by the laughter and applause, I think it was clear to everyone under the sun that they got the joke from this son of Scranton's coal country," Wade said. An AP reporter who covered the speech said Biden's claim came across as a genial if awkwardly self-deprecating effort to establish a bond with the miners — not a joke.
In his 2007 memoirs, Biden put his roots in a more modest context: "I had ancestors from the coal mining town of Scranton."
In 1987 at the Iowa State Fair, Biden both borrowed and slightly adapted lines from Neil Kinnock, then British Labor Party leader, in portraying himself as the descendant of coal miners. In one of the lifted lines, Biden talked about: "My ancestors, who worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours."
(Kinnock had talked about Welsh ancestors "who could work eight hours underground and then come up and play football.")
Biden also was found to have exaggerated his academic record during that campaign and a plagiarism episode from his school days emerged. The revelations crippled his Democratic primary campaign and he pulled out of the presidential race.
Years later, the matter leaves him little room to take license with his biography or experiences.

[tommie]

Unless someone is really willing to overhaul the tax system (flat tax or consumption tax), it's all slight of hand.

[SoTex]

what political party have I aligned myself with?

I'm saying you should. Not doing so is a copout.

[SoTex]

Imho

[Texas Golfer]

"It wasn't her best answer." That's all you have to say for one of the worst answers I have ever heard in response to any question by someone running for public office. Furthermore, you then go back to a stupid comparison that you KEEP referring to like a broken record which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND.

You take a soundbite aired by an obvious liberal "newscaster" and say she's not qualified. Even with that soundbite, she comes across as more intelligent than a presidential candidate who thinks we have more than 57 states and a vice-presidential candidate who thinks FDR was president during the Great Depression and that TVs were in every home.

You do nothing but spout a party line. You don't care about anything but protecting your precious party. You care NOTHING for reasonable discussion about what is best for the country, you only care about making sure "your guy" is portrayed in the best light possible.

I am not pushing the Republican Party. I am against the Democrat Party. Having the #1 most liberal as POTUS and the #3 most liberal as his VP along with a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate would be a disaster that you can't even imagine.

That, in my opinion, is downright unamerican. You don't care for the well-being of the country, you don't examine a candidates qualifications, you only care that your PARTY looks as good as possible, and you're going to protect them to the end.

You have successfully ended our friendship by calling me un-American and not caring for the well-being of a country for which I still bear the scars and carry, within my body, the shell fragments I received defending her.

I was going to answer each of these ridiculous accusations one by one but, after the un-American comment and the comment about not caring for this country, I don't want to talk anymore out of fear that I will really lose it.

[atxtraveler]

Unless someone is really willing to overhaul the tax system (flat tax or consumption tax), it's all slight of hand.

I just became a Tommie fan.

[canuckbear]

That's a load of crap, and that type of insult will get you banned around here.


Banterer makes reasonable posts. You can't back up what you said, but don't resort to insults.

GigaBear,

You called me out for calling The Banterer Rushski. I apologized.

I am calling you out for calling Texas Golfer un-American.

If you say I should get banned for what I said, I think you know what you have to do.

[Bigshot628]

the tailgate should be fun

[The Banterer]

I was going to answer each of these ridiculous accusations one by one but, after the un-American comment and the comment about not caring for this country, I don't want to talk anymore out of fear that I will really lose it.

TG, no one calling you un-American. What we're saying (I'm stepping out on a limb and speaking for Giga, because I think I know what he's getting at) is that telling someone that they can't question the qualifications of a candidate for public service is.

You don't have any concerns about Sarah Palin serving as VP. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with that perspective. I could disagree with you about it all day, but that doesn't make you wrong. This is a two-way situation though, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they are wrong, or that it's any indication of their beliefs beyond the topic at hand.

It is human nature to become very emotionally involved in discussions where a disagreement is present, but it's important to be respectful to the perspectives of others. That doesn't mean you have to even respect their position, just their right to have a position different than yours. We are all guilty of viewing issues through a narrow window at times, but we must continue to try and respect that others disagree with us.

It is of the utmost importance in arguments to try to understand what your opponent is arguing, which is impossible to do without first acknowledging that they can view things differently than. I'm wrong all the time, but I would never know it if I didn't try to understand other people's perspectives.

I want to reiterate TG, that even though I quoted your message in this reply, I'm not trying to single you out. This is something that everyone struggles with, and all we can do is try to get better.

[The Banterer]

GigaBear,

You called me out for calling The Banterer Rushski. I apologized.

I am calling you out for calling Texas Golfer un-American.

If you say I should get banned for what I said, I think you know what you have to do.

He didn't call him un-American.

[Bigshot628]

I'm saying you should. Not doing so is a copout.

I'll pass, call it a copout if you want. There are only a few things that I let define me and a political party isn't one of them.

[Bigshot628]

I was going to answer each of these ridiculous accusations one by one but, after the un-American comment and the comment about not caring for this country, I don't want to talk anymore out of fear that I will really lose it.

TG, you're going to end a friendship over a spat online?

[canuckbear]

"
That, in my opinion, is downright unamerican. You don't care for the well-being of the country, you don't examine a candidates qualifications, you only care that your PARTY looks as good as possible, and you're going to protect them to the end.


Banterer,

Please explain what he did mean by this quote.

PS. I do appreciate your views. Very rarely do I agree, but hey welcome to America. Wouldn't mind meeting you someday.

[The Banterer]

Banterer,

Please explain what he did mean by this quote.

PS. I do appreciate your views. Very rarely do I agree, but hey welcome to America. Wouldn't mind meeting you someday.

He's basically saying that supporting a party without question is un-American. It's a fine distinction to make, but I think that saying that someone's position on a specific issue is un-American is quite different than saying that the person is un-American.

The connotations of calling someone "un-American" are far reaching, both in political ideologies and in personal character. No one can doubt TG's love for our country (which one would be doing if they called him patently un-American), but one could logically argue that his percieved refusal to recognize flaws in the candidates he supports undermines the American principle to question our government at all times.

That is no doubt, a heinous run-on sentence, but if I tried to rewrite it I would probably get frisky and before we knew it, it would turn into several paragraphs, which no one wants.

It's always an interesting experience to meet people who you've participated in online discussions because of the proconceptions you've formed based on their opinions, specifically the innacuracy of these proconceptions.

[GigaBear]

You take a soundbite aired by an obvious liberal "newscaster" and say she's not qualified. Even with that soundbite, she comes across as more intelligent than a presidential candidate who thinks we have more than 57 states and a vice-presidential candidate who thinks FDR was president during the Great Depression and that TVs were in every home.


I give up. This is totally pointless.


I am not pushing the Republican Party. I am against the Democrat Party. Having the #1 most liberal as POTUS and the #3 most liberal as his VP along with a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate would be a disaster that you can't even imagine.


Do you not understand the fact that I agree with you? I'm not sure how many times I can possibly point this out---I DO NOT WANT BARACK OBAMA OR JOE BIDEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE! But that DOESN'T change the fact that Palin appears to be GROSSLY underqualified for the position based on that interview. It wasn't a single mis-step, it was an entire rambling load of nonsense.

Maybe, just maybe, she will show something in the debates. I'm hopeful she does, because if she doesn't, she will single-handedly deliver the White House to Obama.


You have successfully ended our friendship by calling me un-American and not caring for the well-being of a country for which I still bear the scars and carry, within my body, the shell fragments I received defending her.



I was amazed by the fact that, having drank many beers with you and shot much **** with you, you could call me a liar.

The bottom line is, I'm not calling you unAmerican, I'm saying that your actions, whether intentional or not, are unAmerican. You are blindly following one party and one candidate. You have yet to put forth a single defense of Palin except "The Dems are more clueless!"

You should know better than for me to truly say you are unAmerican. I know you and have a pretty good idea of what you stand for---you're just off-base on this particular issue because you're so blinded with hatred for the Dems that you can't understand your own party's shortcomings.

[GigaBear]

He's basically saying that supporting a party without question is un-American. It's a fine distinction to make, but I think that saying that someone's position on a specific issue is un-American is quite different than saying that the person is un-American.

The connotations of calling someone "un-American" are far reaching, both in political ideologies and in personal character. No one can doubt TG's love for our country (which one would be doing if they called him patently un-American), but one could logically argue that his percieved refusal to recognize flaws in the candidates he supports undermines the American principle to question our government at all times.

That is no doubt, a heinous run-on sentence, but if I tried to rewrite it I would probably get frisky and before we knew it, it would turn into several paragraphs, which no one wants.

It's always an interesting experience to meet people who you've participated in online discussions because of the proconceptions you've formed based on their opinions, specifically the innacuracy of these proconceptions.


That's basically it.


And canuck, I was joking when I said it was a bannable offense. Just saying that it has to be breaking some sort of cardinal rule to seriously compare someone to Rushki in any way, shape, or form.

[Bigshot628]

between this thread, watching the cubs lose tonight, pitt vs. south florida and the vice-pesidential debate... i'm not sure I'll have enough time to keep up with everything...

TG and Giga, I will build yall a suspension bridge at the tailgate

[The Banterer]

between this thread, watching the cubs lose tonight, pitt vs. south florida and the vice-pesidential debate... i'm not sure I'll have enough time to keep up with everything...

TG and Giga, I will build yall a suspension bridge at the tailgate

Probably easier to get 'em drunk and let 'em hug it out.

[BaylorBabe]

Sarah Palin is lucky that Joe Biden is a stark raving lunatic and his complete and utter insanity may drown out the fact that she's not very strong in making a point. If she's lucky.

[canuckbear]

That's basically it.


And canuck, I was joking when I said it was a bannable offense. Just saying that it has to be breaking some sort of cardinal rule to seriously compare someone to Rushki in any way, shape, or form.

Although you will disagree with me on this, which is prefectly ok, but TG, who has shrapnel in his body from defending our country, should never be labeled unamerican in any way, shape or form. No problems disagreeing with his view points, but unamerican is one thing he is not.

I know you were joking just coming back at ya. I apologized because I did break the cardinal rule and realized it after the fact.


I'll say the same thing I told Banterer, appreciate your insight.

[BearChick]

Everyone please take a deep breath and a step back from the keyboard and remember that you may say something and intend one thing, but using a written medium like this often leaves room for misinterpretation through no fault of anyone's--it's just a hazard of words w/o tone of voice or facial expression, etc. accompanying them.

...Or this thread will go the way of the dodo.

~ModeratorChick

[canuckbear]

All,

She has spoken. And I mean that in a good way.

[The Banterer]

Everyone please take a deep breath and a step back from the keyboard and remember that you may say something and intend one thing, but using a written medium like this often leaves room for misinterpretation through no fault of anyone's--it's just a hazard of words w/o tone of voice or facial expression, etc. accompanying them.

...Or this thread will go the way of the dodo.

~ModeratorChick

I'm fine with moderation when necessary, but I don't think things are just blatantly nasty right now where it's necessary in this thread. Locking threads where there is miscommunication prevents any sort of resolution from being reached and lets the misunderstanding fester.

I think we are all adult enough here to handle when things get a little heated, as long nothing malicious is said.

[SoTex]

BC has a great point. WE all agree more than we realize. Let's take a deep breath. Let's also steer clear of name calling and we'll all be ok.

Biggy, for what it's worth, the republican party does not "define" me either. I've looked at the issues to know that my priorities align with said party more often than not. Therefore a candidate of that party has to show me why I wouldn't vote for them more than why I should. Just makes my job as a voter a wee bit easier.

[canuckbear]

Yeah,

Bearchick is right. I bet I have a whole lot more in common with The Banterer and Giga then I think.

Most importantly cheering for our football team. I know for a fact that I have a different opinion then TG on who to cheer for this weekend.

One of these games I'll try and hit the GGR Tailgate, I need to meet all these crazy people that post here. I started my own tailagte this year so I kind of spend a majority of my time there.

[Bigshot628]

Biggy, for what it's worth, the republican party does not "define" me either. I've looked at the issues to know that my priorities align with said party more often than not. Therefore a candidate of that party has to show me why I wouldn't vote for them more than why I should. Just makes my job as a voter a wee bit easier.

that's fair... i choose to try and avoid politics all together. I admittedly don't know much about it and don't care to know too much about it. I don't ***** about anything political for that reason and also for the reason that this thread has displayed. I don't think Giga and TG would stop being friends if Giga thought Griffin should start and TG he should have been a redshirt... too much negative energy in politics.

[SoTex]

I can't disagree with that at all, Biggy.

Carry on.

[SoTex]

We'll know more after Thursday night.

I feel much better now.
:D

[atxtraveler]

that's fair... i choose to try and avoid politics all together. I admittedly don't know much about it and don't care to know too much about it. I don't ***** about anything political for that reason and also for the reason that this thread has displayed. I don't think Giga and TG would stop being friends if Giga thought Griffin should start and TG he should have been a redshirt... too much negative energy in politics.

If we were to look at the two candidates, the illustration would be more like... Banterer wants Robert Griffin to run for head coach, despite having no experience as a head coach, and only 4 games of playing in Division I football. TG wants Art Briles, who has one at every level previously, to take the next step and be head coach, and take the next four years to systematically beat UT.

[The Banterer]

If we were to look at the two candidates, the illustration would be more like... Banterer wants Robert Griffin to run for head coach, despite having no experience as a head coach, and only 4 games of playing in Division I football. TG wants Art Briles, who has one at every level previously, to take the next step and be head coach, and take the next four years to systematically beat UT.

Now I dunno about that. I'd liken TG's position to being more for Shawn Bell than Art Briles. :laugh:

Now if Palin is Sophia Young, then the Republicans might be on to something.