Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 398
  1. #281  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Palin was an awful choice. She's not ready to be President. I thought her several years of executive experience was a good thing, and her lack of exposure to the national stage wasn't a deal breaker in itself; a lot of governors do fine as President. But she clearly has a weak command of the issues, and she’d have no credibility as a leader against Congress, with the military, or as the leader of the free world.
    Palin's inability to address the Bush Doctrine question was stunning.
  2. #282  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Populist socialism thrown in. Wow, 40% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. Obama wants to take money from people who make a specific amount and above and give money to those 40% of Americans - money from the government is nothing short of welfare and for most of us, that equates to socialism.
    No it doesn't. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

    If you are talking about wealth redistribution, the Republicans do it just as much as Democrats in the form of corporate welfare, which has grown phenomenally under Bush
  3. #283  
    I'm amazed by the socialism distraction. I hear McCain state that Obama is a socialist, and then talk about the fact that he wants to give money to homeowners who are facing foreclosure. I don't think that this is necessarily a bad idea, but one can certainly make an argument that taking my money to assist someone who can't afford their house is certainly a redistribution of wealth.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    sam,

    Thanks, but um, you'll need to define what you think neoconservatism is if you intend to lure me into this debate. The term has taken on new meaning over a number of years but since you think you have me painted in some corner over something as silly as the term neo-con, by all means - define it.

    And no, I don't think all Republicans are neo-cons at all. But again, if you want to fight this out then lay down a definition (to which I might disagree, but we have to start somewhere) so we have some boundaries for the discussion and we'll have a go.
    I'm not debating the definition of a neo-con. I'm just asking you what makes you think Ted Stevens is one because I've never heard that he was. If you know something about him that I don't, please share because I'm always happy to learn something new.

    If you're just throwing the term around loosely, say so, and we'll move on.
  5. #285  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Palin's inability to address the Bush Doctrine question was stunning.
    That didn't bother me. I think I'm more familiar with the nuances of Bush's foreign policy than most people, and when Gibson asked the question, I wasn't really sure what he was referring to. And as several commentators pointed out later, there really is no single thing that everyone agrees is the Bush Doctrine. That term has been used to refer to at least four different things over the last eight years.

    And that's not to say that Palin is knowledgeable about foreign policy or that if there were a single Bush Doctrine, she would have known what it was.
  6. #286  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm not debating the definition of a neo-con. I'm just asking you what makes you think Ted Stevens is one because I've never heard that he was. If you know something about him that I don't, please share because I'm always happy to learn something new.

    If you're just throwing the term around loosely, say so, and we'll move on.
    Actually it has changed in meaning over the years but I am using it in the more recent context/meaning:

    Neoconservative – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html

    Now I admit that my own personal definition has come to include the attribute “hypocrite” as well with respect to social conservatism/morality – while Ted has been largely pro-choice, his conviction represents a fairly significant moral breakdown. I also tend to toss in the attribute of “chickenhawk” from time to time, but in this respect Ted is a WWII vet so he gets a pass on this one.

    Am I throwing the term around loosely? Maybe. In my mind, I think he represents the worst of the Republican party and may have granted him “neocon” status too quickly. But I think an argument could be made that he is a neocon….it all really depends on whose definition we’re using though.

    In the big picture – does it matter?
  7. #287  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That didn't bother me. I think I'm more familiar with the nuances of Bush's foreign policy than most people, and when Gibson asked the question, I wasn't really sure what he was referring to. And as several commentators pointed out later, there really is no single thing that everyone agrees is the Bush Doctrine. That term has been used to refer to at least four different things over the last eight years.

    And that's not to say that Palin is knowledgeable about foreign policy or that if there were a single Bush Doctrine, she would have known what it was.
    While I loved her deer-in-the-headlights reaction, I don't think this mattered much either. It was one of many straws that broke the camel's back so to speak, but not vitally important over all. Her lying on the other hand may have been her real undoing. She has been caught telling some whoppers and it quickly tarnished her shiny-new-object aura.
  8. #288  
    Far from it. Obama is really more than a socialist, he is a communist. On another topic, I take it that everyone here is aware of a 2003 party attended by Obama, the tape taken of it by the LA Times and its refusal to release the tape. The people at the party include anti-semites, terrorists, racists, well anyway, light reading: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/196/17382/. Also, remember, Obama claims to be a professor, that he is not. Senior lecturer he was.

    It shows just how radical this guy's politics are and of course, another example of the type of people he hangs with.

    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    No it doesn't. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

    If you are talking about wealth redistribution, the Republicans do it just as much as Democrats in the form of corporate welfare, which has grown phenomenally under Bush
  9. #289  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Far from it. Obama is really more than a socialist, he is a communist. On another topic, I take it that everyone here is aware of a 2003 party attended by Obama, the tape taken of it by the LA Times and its refusal to release the tape. The people at the party include anti-semites, terrorists, racists, well anyway, light reading: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/196/17382/. Also, remember, Obama claims to be a professor, that he is not. Senior lecturer he was.

    It shows just how radical this guy's politics are and of course, another example of the type of people he hangs with.
    Oh, please. Even if it's true (and there's nothing to support Glen Beck's allegation), the article states that Obama attended a party at the University of Chicago, where he worked. That says nothing about his policies, or everyone at the University of Chicago is a socialist / terrorist / whatever insult you feel like dishing out.

    You are stating that because this professor at the party was associated with the PLO, that makes Obama a communist? There's not a shred of logic there.

    It's the usual Republican "election as war" philosophy, in which you have to try to dehumanize your opponent. Pathetic, really... one of the many reasons I left the party. Luckily, the election will occur very soon, and show that the American people aren't fooled quite that easily.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That didn't bother me. I think I'm more familiar with the nuances of Bush's foreign policy than most people, and when Gibson asked the question, I wasn't really sure what he was referring to. And as several commentators pointed out later, there really is no single thing that everyone agrees is the Bush Doctrine. That term has been used to refer to at least four different things over the last eight years.

    And that's not to say that Palin is knowledgeable about foreign policy or that if there were a single Bush Doctrine, she would have known what it was.
    I suppose one can say there is no single thing that everyone agrees is the Monroe Doctrine, Truman Doctrine or Bush Doctrine. Most people in the foreign policy, including Bush's senior people, center on preemption for the Bush Doctrine, just as with the Truman Doctrine experts use "containment."

    Certainly the conservative, neo-con and Republican oriented think tanks in Washington have held quite a number of discussions defining and arguing for the Bush Doctrine. It isn't as if it is a figment of the left!

    These types of doctrinal assertions, for powerful nation states typically outlining under what circumstances they exercise military power, are not trivial as the Palin apologists assert.

    Let's suppose it is 1956 or 1960 in the acute stages of the Cold War and and a candidate for Vice president were asked: "what do you think of the Truman Doctrine? And the answer was a stumped look and then after prompting a response that didn't even include containment directly or conceptually?"

    EG: "I believe that what President Truman has attempted to do is rid this world of Communism, Communists who are hell-bent in destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."

    What was that!
  11. #291  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Far from it. Obama is really more than a socialist, he is a communist.
    He is neither. Communism and Socialism are about state or communal ownership of the means of production. Factories, farmland, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    On another topic, I take it that everyone here is aware of a 2003 party attended by Obama, the tape taken of it by the LA Times and its refusal to release the tape. The people at the party include anti-semites, terrorists, racists, well anyway, light reading: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/196/17382/.
    McCain has attended parties with antisemites, racists, and terrorists as well. So you won't vote for him? He is buddies with Liddy. He has used the term "Gook."

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Also, remember, Obama claims to be a professor, that he is not. Senior lecturer he was.
    Actually he was a professor:
    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
    From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.
  12. #292  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Very nice.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  13. #293  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Very nice.
    It won't matter that the truth is shown...

    Bclinker will look over those facts and state the same thing next week before the elections...

    Watch... it happens over and over with him....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  14. #294  
    McCain immediately distances himself and does not ignore his past like Obama does. Did you read the article? Who attended? Obama had a very close relationship with one of the people at the party, in fact, the person the party was held with and gosh, you are aware of who else attended the party, 2 people he has no connection with! still showing up at a party he has no connection with. One cannot continue to believe that he has no connection with 99.9999% of the world when that small per centage he has no connection with still shows up. Really now.

    As for the below, you really are going wild on that. Being considered and actually being are 2 different things and we all know that if McCain stated the same, you personally would be all over him and his supporters for ANOTHER BIG LIE. Really now. Be fair about your statements. They are not the same. Admit it and you will feel much better.

    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    McCain has attended parties with antisemites, racists, and terrorists as well. So you won't vote for him? He is buddies with Liddy. He has used the term "Gook."



    Actually he was a professor:
    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
  15. #295  
    Theog, you know now that had McCain made the claims that Obama has made that YOU would be on them in a heart beat. However, we know that you do look over these facts and ignore them in a constant and consistent manner.

    Take care!

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    It won't matter that the truth is shown...

    Bclinker will look over those facts and state the same thing next week before the elections...

    Watch... it happens over and over with him....
  16. #296  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Actually it has changed in meaning over the years but I am using it in the more recent context/meaning:

    Neoconservative – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html

    Now I admit that my own personal definition has come to include the attribute “hypocrite” as well with respect to social conservatism/morality – while Ted has been largely pro-choice, his conviction represents a fairly significant moral breakdown. I also tend to toss in the attribute of “chickenhawk” from time to time, but in this respect Ted is a WWII vet so he gets a pass on this one.

    Am I throwing the term around loosely? Maybe. In my mind, I think he represents the worst of the Republican party and may have granted him “neocon” status too quickly. But I think an argument could be made that he is a neocon….it all really depends on whose definition we’re using though.

    In the big picture – does it matter?
    Congratulations to Elizabeth Dole for making my honorary neocon's-that-should-burn-in-he!! list (if there is a he!!) in the span of 30 seconds.

    Precisely the despicable, divisive, horrific, un-American, and most certainly un-Christian type of attacks that Americans are tired of seeing from the Republican party. Shameful.
  17. #297  
    yeah, shameful to also hate your country, blast its military, those people fighting to preserve the rights of the people, shame, shame, shame.
  18.    #298  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Congratulations to Elizabeth Dole for making my honorary neocon's-that-should-burn-in-he!! list (if there is a he!!) in the span of 30 seconds.

    Precisely the despicable, divisive, horrific, un-American, and most certainly un-Christian type of attacks that Americans are tired of seeing from the Republican party. Shameful.
    thats SO awesome !!

    I loved that
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/31/2008 at 10:23 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. #299  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    that SO awesome !!

    I loved that
    Right! What's the big deal? No god: that's an accurate assessment.

    Oooh, she took money from godless people. So did Obama & McCane.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #300  
    Glad to see all the wonks are still going at it.

Posting Permissions