Originally posted by declaredemer

We are not going to get any evidence from you.

 

Imagine, as an aside, walking up to someone and saying, "You know what, President is really a Centrist - and a Pragmatist at that - don't ya think?"

Response:  "Huh?"

"Not just that!  He is like Obama, in addition his centrist and pragmatic domestic, foreign, social, and economic policies."

Response:  [hearing dialing noises]  "Hospital, please."

 

I just cannot believe someone out there, in the world, thinks that.  I would love to see some (any) evidence of that, but there is none.

I made my case, re-posted it twice, and all I get from you is appeal to ridicule and personal attacks in response.

Originally posted by Fishermage

I made my case, re-posted it twice, and all I get from you is appeal to ridicule and personal attacks in response.

Sir, no one is attacking you personally.  You are not a victim.  And calling Bush (a) Centrist, (b) Pragmatist, and (c) like Obama will subject you to ridicule.  Better here than out there, Sir.

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

I made my case, re-posted it twice, and all I get from you is appeal to ridicule and personal attacks in response.

 

Sir, no one is attacking you personally.  You are not a victim.  And calling Bush (a) Centrist, (b) Pragmatist, and (c) like Obama will subject you to ridicule.  Better here than out there, Sir.

I never said I was a victim. I am merely calling you on your poor tactics and bad form, which you persist in.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

I made my case, re-posted it twice, and all I get from you is appeal to ridicule and personal attacks in response.

 

Sir, no one is attacking you personally.  You are not a victim.  And calling Bush (a) Centrist, (b) Pragmatist, and (c) like Obama will subject you to ridicule.  Better here than out there, Sir.

 

I never said I was a victim. I am merely calling you on your poor tactics and bad form, which you persist in.

Now you are attacking me personally with "bad form" and "poor tactics."  You have my permission to attack me, personally, all you want.

You still have not provided any evidence that Bush the Younger is any of these things: 

• pragmatic,
• centrist, or
• like Obama. 

And you never will.  You either are playing games; refuse to provide evidence; or have no evidence.

Of course it is ridiculous for someone to think Bush is like Obama, pragmatic, or a centrist.  Of course people are going to call you out on it, as many have here.  No one is calling you names.  You use that as a distraction, and in fact you typically call people names such as "poor tactics" and "bad form."  All I wanted was evidence because I found your claim (a) amusing and (b) astonishing.  Do not take it personally.  You might just have concepts and their definitions all mixed-up.  Or something else.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by Fishermage

neo-conservatism, as people are defining it here, is a more centrist conservatism than traditional conservatism.

 

LOL.  Where did you hear that from?

 

And you are saying that

1. Bush is not a neo-conservative;
2. Bush is a centrist;
3. Bush is a pragmatist;
4. Bush is like Obama; and
5. Neo-consevartism is more centrist than conservatism?
   • You said, "as people are defining it here," what people?

 

I want to keep this straight.  Am I wrong about your claims numbered (1) through (4)?

Why do you have to continually chop up my words and destroy context of every statement?

Sir, you are not a victim.

 

I am convinced you either:

1. Refuse to answer simple questions;
2. Cannot answer simple questions; or
3. Do not understand concepts of neo-conservatism, centrism, and pragmatism.

I do not think you know what you are talking about.  I am serious. 

 

 

I answered every one of your questions. Please refrain from the personal attacks and context-dropping.

No! No! No! You didn't! Is it even possible for you to answer these questions? All you have done is engage in linguistic evasive maneuvers and changing or dropping the subject to avoid the questions. You told me to go hunt for the posts when I said your claims were bogus and that everyone has given ample explanation against your claims. You are the one with the outrageous claims so it's on YOU to prove yourself not prove what is plain to everyone else. I know the world is round and there is enough evidence to prove my claim so I don't have to gather proof for someone who believes the world is flat. You are the one ( the only one) flying in the face of convention wisdom so the burden of proof falls on you! Answer the man's questions or concede the debate.

Originally posted by frodus

Whats unusual about this is the news coverage is still going on even after the election is over.but their is 4 yrs tell the next election which is a life time in politics,we will have to see if she has staying power.

4yrs is plenty of prep time.

This is certainly true, however, you cannot change someone's IQ.  Did you notice President Bush getting much better at speaking as "prep time" went on and on for 8 years?  Uhm.....no.  For someone to be "prepped" you have to have something to work with and build from, and frankly, I don't believe there is much here except a charismatic (I don't mean she has charisma, I mean she's from the "Charismatic" denominational church..."spirit-filled modern day holy rolller" types), mother of five, who has governed a VERY small area for a very SHORT time.

I think she would be wonderful in the church's women's ministry as a leader.  As a political leader....no.

I think Ms. Palin is probably a lovely person, a great mother, a wonderful wife, sister, friend, etc....so are A LOT of women in the United States, BUT....that doesn't qualify her for political office any more than it does any of my equally marvelous female neighbors, friends, and family. 

In conclusion:

If you take someone that is literally retarded and work with them and work with them until they memorize the encyclopedia, it does not make them any less retarded.  It just makes them retarded with a lot of memorized facts, that are likely to be pretty meaningless to them.   You can teach a parrot to recite Shakespeare, but it doesn't make him a literary scholar.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by efefia

Originally posted by Fishermage

What about Abu Nidal? Hammas? All friends of Saddam. It is more complicated than you are making it out to be. Saddam supported Islamic terrorism when it suited him. He, as a dictator, may at times have been more of a "pragmatist," but you are thinking that the islamic terrorists are really RELIGIOUS. They are using their religion for power, just as Saddam did when it was  convenient.

Saddam saw himself at times as a reincarnation of Nubuchadnezzar, and at other times he stylized himself as a leader of the Jihad, as the future Caliph of islam. When 9/11 occurred he declared solidarilty with them and had a mural painted celebrating this "victory for Islam," as he saw it.

The Jihad is no monolith, because it has nothing to do with religion per se. It is about using religion to gain power, and Saddam and Osama are the same in this. So is/was Qaddafi. This kind of attutude is a virus throughout the Muslim world, and this is what must be stopped, and replaced by a truer, reformed, modern Islam. Bush seemed to understand that better than you do.

But all this has nothing to do with whether or not he is a centrist. NOTHING Bush has done speaks of being an ideologue. You can agree or disagree with the tactics -- you can think it weakened us yet the facts are we have not been attacked since -- that shows that BUSH's reaction to it stopped more attacks. How many people thought we would be attacked again?

Well, we have not been, regardless of how YOU think they are stronger. They may be stronger, this war will take generations perhaps to win; but their strength has been slowed if anything by OUR actions (It was congress and the American people who got us here, and Congress and the American people who have gone wobbly now).

At any rate none of this speaks of anything but pragmatism on Bush's side, and ideology on the left undermining the war. This is the best thing about an Obama, or Democrat presidency -- not as many liberals will spend the next four or eight years trying to undermine our war effort.

 

No link to Al Qaeda has been found in any way shape or form to Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda didn't even have a presence in Iraq before 2003, whole damn thing was a complete shambles. Also Hamas are Iranian backed, you might want to look at Saddam's relations with Iran before assuming he'd be an active supporter of theirs.... all that, and that's without even considering the WMD debacle. No one in their right mind would argue that a world without Saddam hussein isn't a better place, the methods employed and the motivations behind them are the contentious points and not many people are willing to argue for them now that the truth is out. I wouldn't go as far to say that Bush actively sought out reasons to invade Iraq, it all came at a very opportune time for him though and he was probably somewhat blinkered by the information, it's sources and his advisers. I find it hard to doubt that the decision to invade Iraq was made with flawed logic, over emotional and ideoligical reasoning.

To bring this somewhat back on topic, the fear a lot of people had with Palin is simply that in her, they see the exact same flaws within Bush, the potential to make the same mistakes for the same reasons and that is why people would be only happy for her to fade back into oblivion.

 

Actually, a link as found, just not what they termed an "operational link." I didn't say anything about Al Qaeda, I said Islamic terrorism. It is hezbollah that are Iranian backed, and is in Lebanon, Hammas is backed by the Saudis and was backed by Saddam, and is in Palenstine. You are mixing up your militant Muslim factions.

Saddam was a rival of Iran, as Al Qaeda is a rival of the Saudi family -- these are rivals for the prize -- the caliphate over an Islamic Empire.

As far as the last -- the main "flaw" that conservatives see in Bush is that he was no true conservative -- what with his huge domestic spending increases. His centrist 'compassionate conservatism" ruined him with his own party, and caused him to fail on the right, which accounts for half his low approval rating. You don't get that low without angering BOTH the right and the left.

Palin has none of those problems. She seems to be a true Goldwater Conservative, which, if she plays it right, will do her much good in the future. Over 65% of the Republican Party favors her, and wants her to run again.

Hezbollah, which I think operates out of Lebanon, is supported by Syria not Iran, I believe.  Its hard to tell sometimes who is supporting who over there.   As for Iraq, "weapons of mass destruction" is a very broad term.  An artillery gun or short range missle system can be defined as a wmd.  So if the US government is saying they found wmd's after the overthrow of Saddam, none of it is stuff that would have threatened the US directly, which was the reason given for the invasion to begin with.

Anyway, back to Palin.  I personally can't stand her because she's way too folksy in her mannerisms and speech.  "You Betcha"  "Say it ain't so Joe" and her other little cutesy catch phrases began to grate me.  Hey Sara, how about you speak to people in a professional manner, like a grown up?  Every time I heard her voice, it was finger nails and forks on a chalk board.  Add that up with her holy roller, Jesus freak personality and beliefs and I hope we never have to hear from her again.

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by frodus

Whats unusual about this is the news coverage is still going on even after the election is over.but their is 4 yrs tell the next election which is a life time in politics,we will have to see if she has staying power.

4yrs is plenty of prep time.

 

This is certainly true, however, you cannot change someone's IQ.  Did you notice President Bush getting much better at speaking as "prep time" went on and on for 8 years?  Uhm.....no.  For someone to be "prepped" you have to have something to work with and build from, and frankly, I don't believe there is much here except a charismatic (I don't mean she has charisma, I mean she's from the "Charismatic" denominational church..."spirit-filled modern day holy rolller" types), mother of five, who has governed a VERY small area for a very SHORT time.

I think she would be wonderful in the church's women's ministry as a leader.  As a political leader....no.

I think Ms. Palin is probably a lovely person, a great mother, a wonderful wife, sister, friend, etc....so are A LOT of women in the United States, BUT....that doesn't qualify her for political office any more than it does any of my equally marvelous female neighbors, friends, and family. 

In conclusion:

 

 

If you take someone that is literally retarded and work with them and work with them until they memorize the encyclopedia, it does not make them any less retarded.  It just makes them retarded with a lot of memorized facts, that are likely to be pretty meaningless to them.   You can teach a parrot to recite Shakespeare, but it doesn't make him a literary scholar.

 

Well..as i said in my post that you quoted,4yrs is a life time in politics and as of now we don't know how this will play out.But that being said is anyone ready to run the most powerful nation of the face of the planet.Me thinks not,that why they all seek advisor's to help them make those decisions.Look at what Obama is doing! loading his cabinet with Clinton hold-overs.They all are packed up sold to the public.

She will be in Atlanta on Monday to campaign for Chablis,they are calling her in because she is the largest fund raiser at this moment in time and she draws the largest crowds.their is something "their" for them to call her in from that frozen tundra.

But hey...im so thankful the Mc cain went down in defeat and he took most if not all of the left leaning Republicans with him.Send those big spending freaks to the desert I say.Clinton tried free health care too and lost the congress and the senate,I suspect the same will happen with Obama because their is no way that BOTTOM up economics will work.

Take a hard look at what is happing in Indian... many will dismiss this it as not a problem,and yes We have inverted back to the pre 9/11 thinking.Just as the Dem's said their was not a problem with Fannie Mae and mac .http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a6_1221760030&comment_order=newest_first 

No only did they bring down the our county but they took the world with them.When the US economy hiccups the rest of the world shits all over it self.

But GirlGeek you do make valid argument and I do relate to it.We can only wait and see,but Bush got reelected twice and we all were aware of the way he speaks. The people aways gets what they deserve left or right.

lol from this side of the pond all i can say is we found her funny . on a serious note i doubt shes electable given her iq must be way below average and lets face it shes not exactly the most honest person . i mean really would you elect someone like that ??? would you eh???  :P 

Not that I'd ever vote for her anyway, but she really lost me when she started referring to a certain regional demographic as the "real Americans"and "pro-America," which of course means that anyone who does not fall into this demographic are the "fake Americans," and "anti-America." The second you start questioning the patriotism of people based on their likelihood of voting for you, you have proven yourself unfit to run for dog catcher, much less Vice President of the United States.

If she runs in 2012, expect the Democrats to have a field day pointing out her blatant disdain for 56% of the country.

*Clears throat* I normally don't post in threads like this, or on any forums in general, but I felt the need to provide some insight and some historical facts for the Palin pundits to chew on.

Let me start by saying that I voted for Barack Obama. I also have the honor of saying that I knew him at one point in time, when he was the professor of one of my classes at the University of Chicago. Barack Obama is as intelligent, insightful, and well spoken as he appears in print and media. I have listened to him speak for hours on subjects that would bore anyone with a pulse to tears, but somehow he injects his own enthusiasm into his lectures and captures your interest with his words. He is also the smartest man I have ever met, and was once president of the Harvard Law Review.

I have never met Sarah Palin, but I have watched her extensively during her campaign. She strikes me as a woman who is not very intelligent, and her only political skills seem to be her wink and her "holier than thou" attitude which is strikingly similar to President Bush's. Every time she makes a statement I can't help but compare it to a contestant answering the "final question" in the Miss America pageant. Furthermore, she has a sub-par education, stumbling from community college to state school to community college before finally receiving a bachelor's degree in broadcast journalism.

I find it scary that the Palin pundits can stand up and defend this woman with a straight face.  I want a president who is smart above all things (not Karl Rove smart, not evil genius), and clearly Barack Obama trumps Sarah Palin in that regard. Need I say more?

I will leave you with a history lesson. The year was 1932. America had been feeling the effects of the Great Depression for over 3 years. Tired of Herbert Hoover's ineffective efforts to keep America from spiraling even deeper into Depression, Americans clearly stated "enough is enough" by electing a democrat by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (the greatest american president imo) to the presidency. Roosevelt almost singlehandedly brought America out of the great depression with aggressive government in the form of the first New Deal. The New Deal created many of the socioeconomic programs that have fallen to crap during the Bush administration, such as Fannie Mae, the FDIC, and the SEC. His second New Deal created the Social Security system, which has also taken a dump during the Bush administration. The second New Deal also created the National Labor Relations Act, which allowed workers to organize into unions and is the reason many americans have 5 day work weeks, paid vacations, pensions, healthcare, and overtime.

During this time period, many right wing groups criticized the programs of Roosevelt as being "socialist", just as they are doing to Obama today. So rest easy my friends, this has all happened before. Obama has both the brains and the will to be another Franklin Roosevelt, and can easily bring this country out of this recession. If Roosevelt could singlehandedly bring a country out of a much greater economic crisis than the current one, then Obama can do the same, in my belief. He reminds me more of Roosevelt than any single president since.

On a side note, Ronald Reagan couldn't fill the space of a pimple on Roosevelt's ass. He was that insignificant, he was.

Originally posted by kobie173

Not that I'd ever vote for her anyway, but she really lost me when she started referring to a certain regional demographic as the "real Americans"and "pro-America," which of course means that anyone who does not fall into this demographic are the "fake Americans," and "anti-America." The second you start questioning the patriotism of people based on their likelihood of voting for you, you have proven yourself unfit to run for dog catcher, much less Vice President of the United States.

If she runs in 2012, expect the Democrats to have a field day pointing out her blatant disdain for 56% of the country.

I agree.  Somehow being from a small town makes you better person than someone who lives in a city according to that line of thinking cause we all know "city folk" lack "small town values".  Of course, if those values include things like intolerance, bigotry and blind devotion to the "with us or against us" mentality then I'm glad I live in a city.

Originally posted by googajoob7

lol from this side of the pond all i can say is we found her funny . on a serious note i doubt shes electable given her iq must be way below average and lets face it shes not exactly the most honest person . i mean really would you elect someone like that ??? would you eh???  :P 

They already have..... twice lol

Originally posted by Ginaz

Originally posted by kobie173

Not that I'd ever vote for her anyway, but she really lost me when she started referring to a certain regional demographic as the "real Americans"and "pro-America," which of course means that anyone who does not fall into this demographic are the "fake Americans," and "anti-America." The second you start questioning the patriotism of people based on their likelihood of voting for you, you have proven yourself unfit to run for dog catcher, much less Vice President of the United States.

If she runs in 2012, expect the Democrats to have a field day pointing out her blatant disdain for 56% of the country.

 

I agree.  Somehow being from a small town makes you better person than someone who lives in a city according to that line of thinking cause we all know "city folk" lack "small town values".  Of course, if those values include things like intolerance, bigotry and blind devotion to the "with us or against us" mentality then I'm glad I live in a city.

And where a certain other poster on this forum lost me is, when I confronted him with this notion of Governor Palin's, he said "she's right."

mmofringe.com/modules.php

Just a thought:  Obama is not even in office and everyone is saying that the country is gonna go to hell, why don't we all just give it a year without pre-judging like mother fuckers?  I don't know how badly or well it will go, and neither does anyone else on this board, I say give Obama a fucking chance, he can't be nearly as bad as Bush was.

"On a side note, Ronald Reagan couldn't fill the space of a pimple on Roosevelt's ass. He was that insignificant, he was."

Reagan is dead and it looks like his policies are not long for this world either. Reagan may be God to the GOP but he'll just be another Presidential side-note in 20 years where FDR will be remembered with the likes of Washington and Lincoln. 

Whoops, here she is again.  The incredible disappearing governor.  I'm so sad she's been forgotten since the election.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Whoops, here she is again.  The incredible disappearing governor.  I'm so sad she's been forgotten since the election.

Zogby: Palin Top 2012 Contender                     YEP,I'm so glad the Republicans won't be in charge when the shit hits the fan.

Monday, December 1, 2008 2:07 PM

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the slight favorite of Republican voters as the best candidate the party could run for President in 2012. When all voters are asked that questions, Palin falls into a three-way tie with Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal.

Those are among the findings of a Zogby Interactive poll of 24,964 voters conducted from Nov. 7-18. The margin of error for the entire sample is +/-0.6 percent.

Voters were offered the choices of Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, Louisiana Gov. Jindal, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. All but Palin and Jindal were candidates for the 2008 nomination. Voters also could choose someone else.

Palin led among Republicans with 24.4 percent of the vote, followed by Romney with 18 percent, and Jindal with 15.6 percent. Among all voter, all three were in a virtual dead head, each sharing between 13 and 12 percent of the sampling. Rounding out the field in single digits were Huckabee, Giuliani, and Paul.

Palin's strength is with all conservatives, conservative religious voters and gun owners. Among Republicans, she gets the support of 30 percent of Born-Again Christians, 32 percent of weekly churchgoers, 34 percent of National Rifle Association members, 28 percent of current gun owners and 29 percent of self-identified conservatives. More GOP support comes from 32 percent of blue collar workers, 30 percent who shop weekly at Wal-Mart, 28 percent of NASCAR fans and 25 percent of both those with children under 17 and those with family members in the military. She scores lower among GOP voters ages 18-29, with 15 percent.

Romney's Republican support level is very consistent across demographic groups. Among his party members, Romney's numbers fall off by a few points from his overall 18.1 percent with religious conservatives and gun owners. Surprisingly, Palin leads Romney among Republican investors, 24 percent to 20 percent.

There are no highs or lows among subgroups for Jindal among Republicans. He is a newcomer to national politics, and already has a reasonable base of GOP support.

Palin looks to be stealing Huckabee's thunder among Republican religious conservatives and working class voters. Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and his highest GOP totals still come from Born-Again Christians (15 percent) and weekly churchgoers (18 percent), but those numbers are about half of those drawn by Palin. Despite his populist economic message, he wins only 10 percent of blue collar Republicans.

The interesting finding about Paul is that he is more popular among all voters than he is among Republicans, reinforcing his appeal as a potential third party candidate.

Pollster John Zogby: "While someone other than those we listed could still emerge as Republican contender, GOP voters seem satisfied with this group. Only 8.2 percent would choose someone else. Despite all of the bad press and late night TV parody of Palin, she still leads the pack. So it is hard to see what could shake the faith of her supporters going forward. If she chooses to run, that solid base would likely keep her in the race through the early primaries. Both Romney and Jindal have appeal to Republicans, with Jindal having the advantage of being the new guy who could bring change to the party."

Sarah Palin bigger than ever: lol Mystery solved, she's still breast feeding.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Whoops, here she is again.  The incredible disappearing governor.  I'm so sad she's been forgotten since the election.

Yeah, back again. Just like herpes. Besides, her 15 minutes aren't over yet.