PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Palin not familiar with the Bush Doctrine


HolmeZz
09-11-2008, 07:31 PM
Completely clueless. Completely friggin' clueless.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YpJsQch9uZo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YpJsQch9uZo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

NewChief
09-11-2008, 08:13 PM
This is the most damning footage I've seen from her interview. She, clearly, doesn't understand what the interviewer is referring to. She recovers alright and gives a decently wiggly answer (what defines immediate and clear threat? Did we face such with Iraq?), but she was clearly clueless as to what he was asking.

VAChief
09-11-2008, 08:14 PM
Less than impressive response...a little deer in the headlights moment, but she has the politicians confident fist gesture down...they practiced that well. He should have let her explain further what she thought it meant before bailing her out. I feel sorry for her in a way, sincerely, except she did accept this gig, and should have known she is not prepared yet.

She seems bright and wily enough to be a contender, but right now she's just a good looking September call up that needs a year or two more in AAA (or at least High A ball).

L.A. Chieffan
09-11-2008, 08:16 PM
To be fair, Bush doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Logical
09-11-2008, 08:20 PM
To be fair, Bush doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.True

But that does not excuse her.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 08:22 PM
Thanks for the response, Miss South Carolina.

What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic answers I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you ever approach anything that could be considered a rational thought. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

L.A. Chieffan
09-11-2008, 08:23 PM
Thanks for the response, Miss South Carolina.

What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic answers I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you ever approach anything that could be considered a rational thought. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I CHOOSE BUSINESS ETHICS.

wazu
09-11-2008, 08:23 PM
Honestly, I didn't know what Gibson was referring to either. When I heard "doctrine", I just figured he meant policy in general until Gibson clarified what he meant.

NewChief
09-11-2008, 08:24 PM
Thanks for the response, Miss South Carolina.

What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic answers I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you ever approach anything that could be considered a rational thought. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vVHddQSIUm4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vVHddQSIUm4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

banyon
09-11-2008, 08:25 PM
I think when she describes herself as a "hockey mom" she is accurate. Unfortunately her foreign policy knowledge appears to also be that of the average "hockey mom".

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 08:26 PM
Honestly, I didn't know what Gibson was referring to either. When I heard "doctrine", I just figured he meant policy in general until Gibson clarified what he meant.

Is this, in any way, an excuse?

Cannibal
09-11-2008, 08:27 PM
To be fair, Bush doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.

ROFL Nice post!!!

HolmeZz
09-11-2008, 08:34 PM
Honestly, I didn't know what Gibson was referring to either.

You're allowed to be an idiot. She isn't.

cdcox
09-11-2008, 08:36 PM
Honestly, I didn't know what Gibson was referring to either. When I heard "doctrine", I just figured he meant policy in general until Gibson clarified what he meant.

You're not running for the vice-president of the United States either.

OK for you.

OK for me.

Not OK for Sara Palin.

Someone like you and me is not necessarily qualified to be vice-president of the United States of America.

Logical
09-11-2008, 08:45 PM
<object height="344" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vVHddQSIUm4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>OMG perfect symmetry.

BucEyedPea
09-11-2008, 09:07 PM
Thanks for the response, Miss South Carolina.

What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic answers I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you ever approach anything that could be considered a rational thought. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

You converted?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 09:44 PM
You converted?

Movie quote, genious.

Cannibal
09-11-2008, 09:48 PM
Movie quote, genious.

+1 ROFL

L.A. Chieffan
09-11-2008, 09:49 PM
Movie quote, genious.

STOP LOOKING AT ME SWAN

Cannibal
09-11-2008, 09:49 PM
+1 ROFL

Obviously this is a direct sarcastic assault on Chief Henry... so go f()ck yourselves.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 10:04 PM
If you read a Chief Henry post, I think you'll find your IQ going -1....decimal place. It's gotta be like being lobotomized

wazu
09-11-2008, 11:15 PM
Is this, in any way, an excuse?

Yes. I read political articles and columns every day and watch the news. I think I'm pretty aware of mainstream terms and discussions. I did a quick check with a couple of (liberal) people I knew if they could tell me what the "Bush Doctrine" was after hearing this supposed gaffe, and they didn't have a clue. These are educated people, although most probably don't follow this stuff as much as I do.

I'm sure that everybody in this thread who is liberal will posture and claim that it is some kind of everyday term that we all know about, but I'll bet most of the people on this board really didn't know what was going on until Gibson explained what he was angling at. I even heard David Gergen on CNN admit that it isn't a term that is used by the media or citizenry, and explaining that the more common terminology is "the pre-emptive doctrine".

So the bottom line is that she articulated her position once she knew WTF Gibson was talking about. Who really gives a rats ass if she is familiar with some obscure term that isn't even in regular circulation?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 11:18 PM
Yes. I read political articles and columns every day and watch the news. I think I'm pretty aware of mainstream terms and discussions. I did a quick check with a couple of (liberal) people I knew if they could tell me what the "Bush Doctrine" was after hearing this supposed gaffe, and they didn't have a clue. These are educated people, although most probably don't follow this stuff as much as I do.

I'm sure that everybody in this thread who is liberal will posture and claim that it is some kind of everyday term that we all know about, but I'll bet most of the people on this board really didn't know what was going on until Gibson explained what he was angling at. I even heard David Gergen on CNN admit that it isn't a term that is used by the media or citizenry, and explaining that the more common terminology is "the pre-emptive doctrine".

So the bottom line is that she articulated her position once she knew WTF Gibson was talking about. Who really gives a rats ass if she is familiar with some obscure term that isn't even in regular circulation?


It's not an obscure term, genious, it's the fundamental foreign policy stance of this country, under this president, that is also probably the most controversial and alienating stance we've held since the escalation in Vietnam.


FWIW, I've used it in several college papers. It's not inexcusable to think that a woman who is being coached in foreign policy 24/7 and whose entire career is political to know what the current administration's foreign policy stance is. It's a remarkably easy question.

wazu
09-11-2008, 11:20 PM
It's not an obscure term, genious, it's the fundamental foreign policy stance of this country, under this president, that is also probably the most controversial and alienating stance we've held since the escalation in Vietnam.

I think most people are familiar with the Bush foreign policy. Knowing the term "Bush Doctrine" as Charlie Gibson defined is another matter.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 11:24 PM
I think most people are familiar with the Bush foreign policy. Knowing the term "Bush Doctrine" as Charlie Gibson defined is another matter.

And yet an idiot such as myself could tell you exactly what the Powell/Weinberger Doctrine and the Rumsfeld Doctrines were.

Nearly every administration has a "doctrine" attached to it. Clinton had one, Reagan had one, Truman had one....it's not a foreign term to anyone with knowledge of political science. She should know this.

Taco John
09-11-2008, 11:27 PM
I don't care what anyone says... Any yahoo on this board knows what the Bush Doctrine is, and would be laughed out of the conversation if they didn't as someone who has no business participating in the discussion.

It's disconcerting to me that a poster who goes by the handle "Baby Lee" (for instance) on a backwater political discussion board knows more about foriegn policy theory (and actually have better formed foriegn policy viewpoints) than a potential president of the United States.

I like Sarah Palin, but I am now convinced that she is unfit to be the Commander in Chief. I am no longer turned on to the ticket (which her presence previously accomodated).

ROYC75
09-11-2008, 11:28 PM
Honestly, I didn't know what Gibson was referring to either. When I heard "doctrine", I just figured he meant policy in general until Gibson clarified what he meant.


Crap, even Gibson didn't know how to explain it. It appears to me she wanted to know what he meant by it.

BTW, what is wrong with asking a question to clarify something up ? Are you not suppose to ask ?

Barry does this........ all politicians do this at some point of time. She answered quite well once she knew what he wanted. She didn't mumble ordance around as Barry did in the Saddlebach debacle.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 11:29 PM
I don't care what anyone says... Any yahoo on this board knows what the Bush Doctrine is, and would be laughed out of the conversation if they didn't as someone who has no business participating in the discussion.

It's disconcerting to me that a poster who goes by the handle "Baby Lee" (for instance) on a backwater political discussion board knows more about foriegn policy theory than a potential president of the United States.

I wonder at what point will we finally reach saturation level when it comes to watering down the intellectual requirements for our political candidates?

ROYC75
09-11-2008, 11:29 PM
Night guys, I'm off to bed, gotta get up early, travel day for me .

Logical
09-11-2008, 11:30 PM
And yet an idiot such as myself could tell you exactly what the Powell/Weinberger Doctrine and the Rumsfeld Doctrines were.

Nearly every administration has a "doctrine" attached to it. Clinton had one, Reagan had one, Truman had one....it's not a foreign term to anyone with knowledge of political science. She should know this.Even if she didn't this is definitely something her handlers should of prepared her for before the interview. This is the basics not the advanced. Tim Russert god rest his soul would destroy her.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 11:31 PM
Crap, even Gibson didn't know how to explain it. It appears to me she wanted to know what he meant by it.

BTW, what is wrong with asking a question to clarify something up ? Are you not suppose to ask ?

Barry does this........ all politicians do this at some point of time. She answered quite well once she knew what he wanted. She didn't mumble ordance around as Barry did in the Saddlebach debacle.

He knew perfectly well how to explain it, and he did it clearly.

Bush Doctrine: Right of preemptive strike on nations thought to be a threat to the United States

Weinberger/Powell: Use overwhelming military force to destroy your enemy. Hold nothing back. Hit them with everything you have.

Rumsfeld: Use a light, mobile force in order to reach your objective as quickly as possible. This is by far the most dependent upon an uninterrupted supply line.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 11:33 PM
Even if she didn't this is definitely something her handlers should of prepared her for before the interview. This is the basics not the advanced. Tim Russert god rest his soul would destroy her.

This isn't Phenomenology of Spirit, it's current event knowledge. I just can't f*cking believe this shit, sometimes.

At least when Bush was pandering in 2000 and said Christ was his favorite philosopher, you could at least make an argument that Christ was a type of philosopher (even if he wouldn't know his ass from Descartes).

Logical
09-11-2008, 11:37 PM
I wonder at what point will we finally reach saturation level when it comes to watering down the intellectual requirements for our political candidates?HJ Bush II need I say more. I think the requirements are already being watered.

RINGLEADER
09-11-2008, 11:38 PM
I thought the Bush doctrine involved being with us or against us. Or was it that a nation that stands by the terrorist is a terrorist nation itself? Or is it pre-emptive war.

Wikipedia can't seem to make up it's mind either.

And, come to think of it, Obama didn't know the answer either:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14965/democratic_debate_transcript_npr.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F1451_joseph_r_biden_jr

Damning.

Just damning.

ROFL

Taco John
09-11-2008, 11:38 PM
Crap, even Gibson didn't know how to explain it. It appears to me she wanted to know what he meant by it.

What are you talking about? Gibson explained this concept more than adequately. It was a huge discussion in this country not long ago, because Bush's foriegn policy was a drastic departure from our previous foriegn policy of contaiment.

BTW, what is wrong with asking a question to clarify something up ? Are you not suppose to ask ?

It's like going into a 400 level class on brain anatomy and looking bewildered when the professor asks you what a dendrite is. It shows incopetence, and worse, ignorance that she was puzzled by the term.

I'm sorry, but I'm losing a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who is a militant on this board, or has in any way criticized Obama's foriegn policy experience, and is trying to somehow rationalize this horrible gaffe. We're talking about the presidency here. There's no excuse for her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is - none whatsoever.



Barry does this........ all politicians do this at some point of time. She answered quite well once she knew what he wanted. She didn't mumble ordance around as Barry did in the Saddlebach debacle.[/QUOTE]

Taco John
09-11-2008, 11:42 PM
I thought the Bush doctrine involved being with us or against us. Or was it that a nation that stands by the terrorist is a terrorist nation itself? Or is it pre-emptive war.

Wikipedia can't seem to make up it's mind either.

And, come to think of it, Obama didn't know the answer either:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14965/democratic_debate_transcript_npr.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F1451_joseph_r_biden_jr

Damning.

Just damning.

ROFL


You admitting here that Palin is unqualified aside, Wikipedia does an accurate job of explaining the Bush Doctrine.

Jenson71
09-11-2008, 11:48 PM
Yes. I read political articles and columns every day and watch the news. I think I'm pretty aware of mainstream terms and discussions. I did a quick check with a couple of (liberal) people I knew if they could tell me what the "Bush Doctrine" was after hearing this supposed gaffe, and they didn't have a clue. These are educated people, although most probably don't follow this stuff as much as I do.

I'm sure that everybody in this thread who is liberal will posture and claim that it is some kind of everyday term that we all know about, but I'll bet most of the people on this board really didn't know what was going on until Gibson explained what he was angling at. I even heard David Gergen on CNN admit that it isn't a term that is used by the media or citizenry, and explaining that the more common terminology is "the pre-emptive doctrine".

So the bottom line is that she articulated her position once she knew WTF Gibson was talking about. Who really gives a rats ass if she is familiar with some obscure term that isn't even in regular circulation?

In a way, it's like Hamden v. Rumsfeld. Maybe you or your friends can't relate the term to the thought behind it, but you'd sure as hell want the vice president to be familiar with it.

Books about the Bush Doctrine, that even use the term in the title: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+Bush+Doctrine

60,000 hits on Google News: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=the+bush+doctrine&ie=UTF-8

jstor: over 8700 articles at least mentioning "Bush Doctrine"

Jenson71
09-11-2008, 11:51 PM
"His worldview?" - I mean, what in the hell are we doing? How the hell did we get here? There is something drastically wrong here.

Taco John
09-11-2008, 11:54 PM
I even heard David Gergen on CNN admit that it isn't a term that is used by the media or citizenry, and explaining that the more common terminology is "the pre-emptive doctrine".




Sorry, but this is absolute bullshit. 100%.


The proof is in the pudding:

Goolge "Pre-emptive doctrine" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=%22pre-emptive+doctrine%22) - Results 3,610

Bush Doctrine (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=%22Bush+doctrine%22) - Results 566,000


Gergen is covering, but ultimately, he's easily proven a liar.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:02 AM
Even if you don't know what it is, how can you as a VP candidate not even look at WIKIPEDIA for f*cks sake? You can't even familiarize yourself with basic terms? Did she not anticipate someone bring up the Bush Doctrine for a Republican and talking about foreign policy?

Any way you spin this, it is absolutely astonishing.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:04 AM
Charlie, I'm going to bullshit you and change subjects in an attempt to throw you for a loop so you'll stop questioning me. Okay, Charlie?


I think Hamas' quote from Billy Madison is actually the best response possible.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:08 AM
"His worldview?" - I mean, what in the hell are we doing? How the hell did we get here? There is something drastically wrong here.

ROFL

In what respect Charlie? His world view?!!??!!?!!? Charlie, I believe [insert Bush reference] [insert islamofacism] [insert terrorists] [insert threatening our freedoms] [insert admission of errors in the war] [insert deflection to democracy and its beauty]. Charlie, if there is legitimate intelligence there is a strike against our nation, we have every right to attack. Charlie, please stop questioning me.

RINGLEADER
09-12-2008, 12:09 AM
You admitting here that Palin is unqualified aside, Wikipedia does an accurate job of explaining the Bush Doctrine.

ROFL

I'd take Palin's answers over Obama's any day.

Obama: end the war in Iraq (whether we win it or not)
Obama: slow development of new weapons systems
Obama: stop funding missile defense technology
Obama: meet with the leaders of rogue nations trying to develop nuclear technology
Obama: lectures on moral equivilency between us and terrorism-exporting states
Obama: send $200 million to rogue countries that support terrorism

Oh wait, that last one was from Biden...

ROFL

You could go on and on and on...

RINGLEADER
09-12-2008, 12:09 AM
Even if you don't know what it is, how can you as a VP candidate not even look at WIKIPEDIA for f*cks sake? You can't even familiarize yourself with basic terms? Did she not anticipate someone bring up the Bush Doctrine for a Republican and talking about foreign policy?

Any way you spin this, it is absolutely astonishing.

ASTONISHING!

ROFL

RINGLEADER
09-12-2008, 12:10 AM
Sorry, but this is absolute bullshit. 100%.

The proof is in the pudding:

Goolge "Pre-emptive doctrine" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=%22pre-emptive+doctrine%22) - Results 3,610

Bush Doctrine (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=%22Bush+doctrine%22) - Results 566,000

Gergen is covering, but ultimately, he's easily proven a liar.


Yeah, that's pretty scientific.

ASTONISHING! LIAR!

ROFL

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:12 AM
ASTONISHING!

ROFL

I cannot believe people are defending the VP candidate not knowing their own Party's member and current President's doctrine.

That just blows my mind.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 12:15 AM
I cannot believe people are defending the VP candidate not knowing their own Party's member and current President's doctrine.

That just blows my mind.

Well it's not like she said lipstick on a pig.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 12:15 AM
And let me be clear on something. I very much like Sarah Palin and have commented as much on it as long ago as December 2007 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4415511&postcount=17). I'm among the conservatives who see Sarah Palin as a reach towards the Ron Paul and the Huckabee Republicans - going for two birds with one stone.

But this is a gaffe and I'll tell you why: It proves to me that she doesn't have well formed foreign policy viewpoints. It shows me that She hasn't gone through any critical thought process towards the subject of our current foriegn policy whatsoever. And let me be clear on this particular point - the fact that her and I disagree on the foriegn policy that is coming out of her mouth isn't what's at odds here. It's that she shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the foriegn policy that is coming out of her mouth. That's a problem.

HolmeZz
09-12-2008, 12:16 AM
Holy shit, when did RINGLEADER turn into recxjake? If you seriously covered his moniker for the last couple replies, you wouldn't know the difference.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 12:17 AM
ROFL

I'd take Palin's answers over Obama's any day.




Of course you would. They're phrases that anybody could rattle off and get agreement with you on.

But, that's surface level politics, and it's not a space that I operate in.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:18 AM
And let me be clear on something. I very much like Sarah Palin and have commented as much on it as long ago as December 2007 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4415511&postcount=17). I'm among the conservatives who see Sarah Palin as a reach towards the Ron Paul and the Huckabee Republicans - going for two birds with one stone.

But this is a gaffe and I'll tell you why: It proves to me that she doesn't have well formed foreign policy viewpoints. It shows me that She hasn't gone through any critical thought process towards the subject of our current foriegn policy whatsoever. And let me be clear on this particular point - the fact that her and I disagree on the foriegn policy that is coming out of her mouth isn't what's at odds here. It's that she shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the foriegn policy that is coming out of her mouth. That's a problem.

You're a Huckabee fan?

RINGLEADER
09-12-2008, 12:21 AM
You admitting here that Palin is unqualified aside, Wikipedia does an accurate job of explaining the Bush Doctrine.

From Wikipedia:

The Bush Doctrine is a term recognized by some to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.

That's 4-5 different options to choose from according to Wikipedia. Some will say she asked Gibson to give her a little clarity, not answer the question - and just because Gibson embraces one of those options don't make it necessarily so. You feel otherwise then that's okay too -- but Wikipedia underscores my original point.

But keep talking about the GOP's VP candidate. Please.

RINGLEADER
09-12-2008, 12:22 AM
Of course you would. They're phrases that anybody could rattle off and get agreement with you on.

But, that's surface level politics, and it's not a space that I operate in.

No, those are the things that Obama believes in and has promised if elected president. It's really amazing that Obama supporters don't believe their own candidate's words. If you go on Youtube you'll find all of them in about a minute.

RINGLEADER
09-12-2008, 12:26 AM
But this is a gaffe and I'll tell you why: It proves to me that she doesn't have well formed foreign policy viewpoints. It shows me that She hasn't gone through any critical thought process towards the subject of our current foriegn policy whatsoever. And let me be clear on this particular point - the fact that her and I disagree on the foriegn policy that is coming out of her mouth isn't what's at odds here. It's that she shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the foriegn policy that is coming out of her mouth. That's a problem.

You might be right. Or she may just have wanted Gibson to tell her which of the five options that some have embraced in the past he was talking about. He clearly wanted to get her, as he should -- it's his job, but I doubt most will see this as some kind of ignorance on the subject that the left will paint it as. But they've been over-reaching since she was announced and I don't for the life of me understand why they don't just stay focused on McCain.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:29 AM
From Wikipedia:

The Bush Doctrine is a term recognized by some to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.

That's 4-5 different options to choose from according to Wikipedia. Some will say she asked Gibson to give her a little clarity, not answer the question - and just because Gibson embraces one of those options don't make it necessarily so. You feel otherwise then that's okay too -- but Wikipedia underscores my original point.

But keep talking about the GOP's VP candidate. Please.

You know what it doesn't say?

It doesn't say it's Bush's world view.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 12:30 AM
You're a Huckabee fan?


Not in particular. But I am a believer in Christ (though I'm admittedly not always the best representative - I do always endeavor at the very least to be honest and consistent, and in my best moments empathetic and understanding of the other position even if I fundamentally disagree with it).

I was not a Huckabee fan because I didn't appreciate his gimmicky use of Christian imagery to sell his campaign and his Christianity. I found it to be very disingenuous and cheap. I more appreciated Dr. Paul's approch - he let his Christianity speak for itself, and like you would expect from a physician, focused on the fundamental problems, while also offering solutions to treat the symptoms.

HolmeZz
09-12-2008, 12:30 AM
The answer she eventually gave had nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine. She clearly had no clue what Charlie was referring to, which was why he had to lay out the question even more clearly. She was completely lost and for you to act otherwise is silly. There's a reason why McCain pointed to her "being close to Russia" when he was laying out the extent of her foreign policy knowledge/credentials. She seriously sounded about as lost as posters on here do and words can't describe how scary that is.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:33 AM
Not in particular. But I am a believer in Christ (though I'm admittedly not always the best representative - I do always endeavor at the very least to be honest and consistent, and in my best moments empathetic and understanding of the other position even if I fundamentally disagree with it).

I was not a Huckabee fan because I didn't appreciate his gimmicky use of Christian imagery to sell his campaign and his Christianity. I found it to be very disingenuous and cheap. I more appreciated Dr. Paul's approch - he let his Christianity speak for itself, and like you would expect from a physician, focused on the fundamental problems, while also offering solutions to treat the symptoms.

Well, see, I figured since you were a Paul fan that Huckabee would be out of the question. I mean Huckabee openly said he wanted to CHANGE the constitution not merely get back to it.

And after the Obama assassination joke, I'd be astonished if he runs again.

RINGLEADER
09-12-2008, 12:34 AM
You know what it doesn't say?

It doesn't say it's Bush's world view.

True nuff, but like I said those who want to see it as a gaffe will and those who don't won't. She didn't trip on a question that would make her seem unprepared in the eyes of most I suspect.

And she didn't say the question was above her pay grade either.

;)

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:35 AM
True nuff, but like I said those who want to see it as a gaffe will and those who don't won't. She didn't trip on a question that would make her seem unprepared in the eyes of most I suspect.

And she didn't say the question was above her pay grade either.

;)

She tripped, for sure. Will average joe know? Absolutely not. Average joe is dumb as rocks. It's why we're in this situation in the first place.

RINGLEADER
09-12-2008, 12:35 AM
The answer she eventually gave had nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine. She clearly had no clue what Charlie was referring to, which was why he had to lay out the question even more clearly. She was completely lost and for you to act otherwise is silly. There's a reason why McCain pointed to her "being close to Russia" when he was laying out the extent of her foreign policy knowledge/credentials. She seriously sounded about as lost as posters on here do and words can't describe how scary that is.

And Obama promising to meet with the leader of Iran, promising to end the war in Iraq regardless of whether or not we win, promising to slow development of new weapons systems, etc., etc. isn't scary?

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:37 AM
And Obama promising to meet with the leader of Iran, promising to end the war in Iraq regardless of whether or not we win, promising to slow development of new weapons systems, etc., etc. isn't scary?

How do we "win" in Iraq? I thought Mission was Accomplished?

Why should we not slow development of new weapons systems while going around and telling people to stop theirs entirely?

Why is meeting with Iran a bad thing?

Taco John
09-12-2008, 12:38 AM
You might be right. Or she may just have wanted Gibson to tell her which of the five options that some have embraced in the past he was talking about. He clearly wanted to get her, as he should -- it's his job, but I doubt most will see this as some kind of ignorance on the subject that the left will paint it as. But they've been over-reaching since she was announced and I don't for the life of me understand why they don't just stay focused on McCain.



Absolutely not. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any respect for any attempt to rationalize this gaffe. Whatever you want to say about the broad definitions, I could have given a thoughtful answer to that question without as much as an abated "um." I understand that you're not going to give a moments thought about your candidate's own qualifications for running the nation. You're already an evangelist for the cause - you're not going to change your mind regardless of what she says so long as she's toeing the line.

The people who she would lose because of this gaffe aren't people who are already sold, lock, stock, and barrel.

Silock
09-12-2008, 12:40 AM
Absolutely not. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any respect for any attempt to rationalize this gaffe. Whatever you want to say about the broad definitions, I could have given a thoughtful answer to that question without as much as an abated "um." I understand that you're not going to give a moments thought about your candidate's own qualifications for running the nation. You're already an evangelist for the cause - you're not going to change your mind regardless of what she says so long as she's toeing the line.

The people who she would lose because of this gaffe aren't people who are already sold, lock, stock, and barrel.

Yeah, I don't think a mistake like this will look good if you're an undecided. It's a mistake. If you're pulling for the Repubs, though, you have to hope that the public remembers that both sides have made these kinds of errors.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 12:40 AM
Well, see, I figured since you were a Paul fan that Huckabee would be out of the question.

You figured right. My point was that she appeals to the bases of both the Ron Paul and the Huckabee Republicans. Though she's predictably losing more and more Ron Paul Republicans every time she opens her mouth.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 12:42 AM
You figured right. My point was that she appeals to the bases of both the Ron Paul and the Huckabee Republicans. Though she's predictably losing more and more Ron Paul Republicans every time she opens her mouth.

Adam would go to the gates of Hell to defend that woman.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:44 AM
You figured right. My point was that she appeals to the bases of both the Ron Paul and the Huckabee Republicans. Though she's predictably losing more and more Ron Paul Republicans every time she opens her mouth.

Oh, okay. I misinterpreted thinking you meant something else.

I got it now.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 12:44 AM
Adam would go to the gates of Hell to defend that woman.

Would he go to Pakistan, though?

Silock
09-12-2008, 12:53 AM
Though she's predictably losing more and more Ron Paul Republicans every time she opens her mouth.

Were any Ron Paul Republicans really going to vote for either of the 2 major candidates? I know I'm not.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 12:55 AM
And Obama promising to meet with the leader of Iran, promising to end the war in Iraq regardless of whether or not we win, promising to slow development of new weapons systems, etc., etc. isn't scary?



Why should it be? The best way to influence Iran is through friendship, not through war. Do you think so little of the Iranian people that you don't believe that we can be friends with them and influence them? As far as I'm concerned, the time to go to war with Iran is when they reject an honest attempt at friendship through an act of war.

I think attempting honest friendship with other nations is always the right course, regardless of what pop-history says we should believe.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 01:02 AM
Were any Ron Paul Republicans really going to vote for either of the 2 major candidates? I know I'm not.


Yes, Sarah Palin has been a a favorite daughter on the Ron Paul message boards. There are a lot of Ron Paul republicans who were put into play when Sarah Palin was added to the ticket. Particularly the ones who think that it's more important to stop the creep of socialism in this country, than to stop the creep of US imperialism in foriegn lands.

Silock
09-12-2008, 02:17 AM
Yes, Sarah Palin has been a a favorite daughter on the Ron Paul message boards. There are a lot of Ron Paul republicans who were put into play when Sarah Palin was added to the ticket. Particularly the ones who think that it's more important to stop the creep of socialism in this country, than to stop the creep of US imperialism in foriegn lands.

I find that . . . odd.

Ultra Peanut
09-12-2008, 02:29 AM
"It's a simple question, Sarah. Would you eat the moon if it were made of barbecue spare ribs?"

Taco John
09-12-2008, 02:39 AM
I find that . . . odd.


How so?

Silock
09-12-2008, 02:43 AM
How so?

Well, she's still attached to McCain, for starters.

Frankly, I find all this hoopla about either VP candidate more than a tad strange.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 03:45 AM
Well, she's still attached to McCain, for starters.

Frankly, I find all this hoopla about either VP candidate more than a tad strange.


John McCain would be the oldest president ever elected should he get the electoral nod this November. As far as I'm concerned Palin is running for president just as much as he is. And for that matter, so is Biden. We live in an uncertain world.

Silock
09-12-2008, 05:04 AM
John McCain would be the oldest president ever elected should he get the electoral nod this November. As far as I'm concerned Palin is running for president just as much as he is. And for that matter, so is Biden. We live in an uncertain world.

Well, neither of the VP candidates is strong enough to win the presidency on their own. And I'm not voting for their more prestigious running mates, anyway, so maybe that's tempering my concern a bit more than usual.

NewChief
09-12-2008, 05:27 AM
There's a great correlation at work here:

The more damaging or serious an issue, the more actively Ringleader will participate in the thread, spinning.

Republicans are definitely good at triage.

Nice job, Baghdad Bob!

plbrdude
09-12-2008, 05:40 AM
You're not running for the vice-president of the United States either.

OK for you.

OK for me.

Not OK for Sara Palin.

Someone like you and me is not necessarily qualified to be vice-president of the United States of America.



what exactly does qualify one to be vice president?

patteeu
09-12-2008, 06:34 AM
And let me be clear on something. I very much like Sarah Palin and have commented as much on it as long ago as December 2007 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4415511&postcount=17). I'm among the conservatives who see Sarah Palin as a reach towards the Ron Paul and the Huckabee Republicans - going for two birds with one stone.

But this is a gaffe and I'll tell you why: It proves to me that she doesn't have well formed foreign policy viewpoints. It shows me that She hasn't gone through any critical thought process towards the subject of our current foriegn policy whatsoever. And let me be clear on this particular point - the fact that her and I disagree on the foriegn policy that is coming out of her mouth isn't what's at odds here. It's that she shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the foriegn policy that is coming out of her mouth. That's a problem.

It's funny, but a fundamental lack of understanding of foreign policy is the primary reason I couldn't support Ron Paul and it's a big part of Obama's lack of appeal.

patteeu
09-12-2008, 06:39 AM
The answer she eventually gave had nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine. She clearly had no clue what Charlie was referring to, which was why he had to lay out the question even more clearly. She was completely lost and for you to act otherwise is silly. There's a reason why McCain pointed to her "being close to Russia" when he was laying out the extent of her foreign policy knowledge/credentials. She seriously sounded about as lost as posters on here do and words can't describe how scary that is.

Her inexperience reminds me of Obama, except that he can't really claim to be an outsider.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 06:41 AM
It's funny, but a fundamental lack of understanding of foreign policy is the primary reason I couldn't support Ron Paul and it's a big part of Obama's lack of appeal.

Then I can see why you are turned off by Palin, but also understand why you'll vote for her anyways...

patteeu
09-12-2008, 07:14 AM
Then I can see why you are turned off by Palin, but also understand why you'll vote for her anyways...

I don't vote for vice president. I've always been a big fan of Dick Cheney, but even he wasn't enough to get me to vote for Bush in 2000.

I like Palin fine. I don't think she's steeped in foreign policy the way Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, or John McCain are, but you wouldn't expect that from a Governor. Governors still make the best Presidential candidates though because they've demonstrated organizational skills and they've been in decision-making situations that lawmakers can't usually match.

penchief
09-12-2008, 07:37 AM
If she were the democratic nominee for vice president and performed like she did you can just imagine the howls from the right. Their hypocricy is deafening. It's clear that the republicans defending this woman as qualified to be president don't care about issues and don't care about competence.

I'd much rather they just come out and admit that fact rather than pretend like she is qualified and that all of the scrutiny is the big bad media's fault and because that nasty Obama is unfairly attacking her.

jettio
09-12-2008, 07:45 AM
I think the more the voters see of Palin, the more apparent it is that she is just the type of person to try and throw her weight around and get her ex brother-in-law trooper fired.

She craves power to make money and get revenge.

Ultra Peanut
09-12-2008, 07:50 AM
Her inexperience reminds me of Obama, except that he can't really claim to be an outsider.Yeah, because he got similarly embarrassed by that liberal softball tosser Bill O'Reilly.

ohwai

NewChief
09-12-2008, 07:57 AM
If our local paper is any indication, the tides may be starting to shift on Palin. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is a complete conservative rag since the Clinton years, and they've been in love with Palin. However, they had a blistering article (not op-ed) on Palin that basically regurgitated every scandal, hypocrisy, and gaffe she's had up to this point.

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 08:07 AM
The "Bush Doctrine" is just a made up name to collect various foreign policy pieces. It's not actually a piece of legislation.

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 08:11 AM
The "Bush Doctrine" is just a made up name to collect various foreign policy pieces. It's not actually a piece of legislation.

Policy is legislation?

The Powell Doctrine was not legislation. But it was well established policy. Don't deny that. That's Palin-esque.

banyon
09-12-2008, 08:17 AM
The "Bush Doctrine" is just a made up name to collect various foreign policy pieces. It's not actually a piece of legislation.

NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY 2002

V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction:

...To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

It's codified policy. But you are right, it is not a Congressional Act.

penchief
09-12-2008, 08:18 AM
The "Bush Doctrine" is just a made up name to collect various foreign policy pieces. It's not actually a piece of legislation.

It's hard to believe anyone doesn't know what it is. In a nutshell, it's the doctrine of pre-emption. Plain and simple. This country was divided on the Bush Doctrine and it was harshly debated for months.

To act as if it is some complicated collection of foreign policy pieces is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it was based on a single fundamental tenet; that we had the right to pre-emptively strike any country if we believed that country was a threat to our security. It is what led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

For someone to feign that they do not know what it is because it is complicated or "made up" seems disingenous to me. And it is inconceivable considering the conditions in the world today that anyone who is striving to be a heartbeat away from the presidency doesn't know how to answer that question.

Considering that her base is willing to overlook her shortcomings in that area it would have served her better to admit that she didn't know what it was instead of trying to act like she did and still not answer the question.

Chiefnj2
09-12-2008, 08:33 AM
Her handlers effed up by not going over the Bush doctrine with her. Oh well, you can't cram everything into a week.

patteeu
09-12-2008, 08:53 AM
It's hard to believe anyone doesn't know what it is. In a nutshell, it's the doctrine of pre-emption. Plain and simple.

I've heard and read a half dozen different definitions of the Bush Doctrine since this thread was created. Maybe it's not as plain and simple as you think.

mlyonsd
09-12-2008, 08:55 AM
I've heard and read a half dozen different definitions of the Bush Doctrine since this thread was created. Maybe it's not as plain and simple as you think.

If you really want to see deer in headlights ask Obama what the Obama doctrine is at any given time.

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 09:01 AM
I've heard and read a half dozen different definitions of the Bush Doctrine since this thread was created. Maybe it's not as plain and simple as you think.

In a scripted interview, with Charlie Gibson, she should know exactly what the Bush Doctrine is. And as the VP candidate I don't think it's asking too much for her to know half a dozen different definitions of Bush Doctrine.

At the very least, get my mind off the subject by furiously crossing and uncrossing her legs. I mean.... c'mon.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 09:05 AM
If you really want to see deer in headlights ask Obama what the Obama doctrine is at any given time.

Is that really the best you can do?

banyon
09-12-2008, 09:09 AM
I've heard and read a half dozen different definitions of the Bush Doctrine since this thread was created. Maybe it's not as plain and simple as you think.

How about the one I posted from the WH NSC site, shouldn't that be pretty accurate?

penchief
09-12-2008, 09:09 AM
I've heard and read a half dozen different definitions of the Bush Doctrine since this thread was created. Maybe it's not as plain and simple as you think.

I'm going by the original definition that was hotly debated, that divided this country, and that was the basis for invading Iraq. All other definitions are mere offshoots or addendums to the fundamental tenet that we know as pre-emption (i.e. The Bush Doctrine).

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 09:10 AM
If you read a Chief Henry post, I think you'll find your IQ going -1....decimal place. It's gotta be like being lobotomized

I must be getting under your pasty white ass skin ? You guys are so
:lame: You guys pile on Sarah because your own candiate is so weak
and pathetic. Carry on with your gang bang. I'll Fed Ex you boys a few basketballs to take your mind off a Sarah.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 09:14 AM
I must be getting under your pasty white ass skin ? You guys are so
:lame: You guys pile on Sarah because your own candiate is so weak
and pathetic. Carry on with your gang bang. I'll Fed Ex you boys a few basketballs to take your mind off a Sarah.

Alright, not only are you so stupid that you can't foment any semblance of a counterargument, but you also must result to a race baiting joke. Congratulations on the Daily Double.

mlyonsd
09-12-2008, 09:17 AM
Is that really the best you can do?

I've heard him change enough on basic principles when it comes to energy, Iraq, the surge, Pakistan, his own Reverend, handguns, wire tapping, etc, I bet Biden would have a hard time answering what the Obama doctrine was.

To be clear I've seen nothing of Palin that scares me. Not anymore than McCain, Obama, or Biden. It's as easy and simple as that.

Does that answer your question?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 09:18 AM
I've heard him change enough on basic principles when it comes to energy, Iraq, the surge, Pakistan, his own Reverend, handguns, wire tapping, etc, I bet Biden would have a hard time answering what the Obama doctrine was.

To be clear I've seen nothing of Palin that scares me. Not anymore than McCain, Obama, or Biden. It's as easy and simple as that.

Does that answer your question?

You do realize that "Doctrines" are generally put forth by military commanders or Chief Executives?

Nevermind, it's clear that you don't.

penchief
09-12-2008, 09:21 AM
I must be getting under your pasty white ass skin ? You guys are so
:lame: You guys pile on Sarah because your own candiate is so weak
and pathetic. Carry on with your gang bang. I'll Fed Ex you boys a few basketballs to take your mind off a Sarah.

There is no piling on Sarah Palin. What you incorrectly call "piling on" is actually nothing more than the vetting process that McCain failed to do. It is nothing more than the scrutiny anyone would expect for a complete unknown who may be president.

The Rove/McCain strategy of whining about "picking on Palin" is a diversion from the fact that it is McCain who is making the personal attacks and that it is McCain who screwed up by not thoroughly vetting her.

Wanting to know what makes her tick and whether or not she's qualified is not asking too much. And it's certainly not piling on. That interview was one in which she should have been able to handle with ease if she were prepared to be president.

mlyonsd
09-12-2008, 09:22 AM
You do realize that "Doctrines" are generally put forth by military commanders or Chief Executives?

Nevermind, it's clear that you don't.

7 dictionary results for: doctrine
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=doctrine&ia=luna) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrine#sharethis) doc∑trine http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png <SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" /> (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/\"http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/D04/D0427500\")", "6"); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high"); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t"); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FD04%2FD0427500.mp3"); interfaceflash.write(); </SCRIPT><OBJECT id=speaker codeBase=codebase= height=18 width=17 align=top classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>






















</OBJECT><NOSCRIPT>http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/D04/D0427500)</NOSCRIPT> /ˈdɒkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtrɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-trin] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Ėnoun <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>1.</TD><TD vAlign=top>a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>2.</TD><TD vAlign=top>something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>3.</TD><TD vAlign=top>a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



No, it's clear you don't know what the word could mean.

Chiefnj2
09-12-2008, 09:23 AM
The democratic voters on this bulletin board put up a better fight than Obama, Biden and the entire democratic party. I fear that Obama lost the election the last two weeks.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 09:26 AM
The stevieray dictionary defense: When presented with a question, remove all context.

Nice try genious, but Doctrine in this sense, as in capital D, is what we are referring to here, which is a unique foreign policy stance of a given American administration or the military leaders of the country at a given time. The rules have been clearly established here, no one has argued that Palin thought we were talking about Just War Theory or the Doctrine of Luxembourg non-aggression.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 09:28 AM
The democratic voters on this bulletin board put up a better fight than Obama, Biden and the entire democratic party. I fear that Obama lost the election the last two weeks.

I agree with you to an extent, but no one should be counting their chickens until after the debates.
Itís entirely possible that Gramps McAmnesty and Sarah ďBarracudaĒ look like complete idiots while Barry Hussein and Joe ďpart of the problemĒ run circles around them. I doubt it, but itís possible.

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 09:29 AM
There is no piling on Sarah Palin.

ROFL


keep piling on PC

Fat Elvis
09-12-2008, 09:33 AM
"It's a simple question, Sarah. Would you eat the moon if it were made of barbecue spare ribs?"


I know I would. Heck, I'd have seconds. Then polish it off with a tall, cool Budweiser.

Fat Elvis
09-12-2008, 09:40 AM
what exactly does qualify one to be vice president?

Apparently, if you're a Republican and/or consersative, the ability to differentiate yourself from a pitbull by wearing lipstick.....

penchief
09-12-2008, 09:42 AM
ROFL


keep piling on PC

I see that you still resort to the grade school comeback as a substitute for reason.

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 09:43 AM
It's hard to believe anyone doesn't know what it is. In a nutshell, it's the doctrine of pre-emption. Plain and simple. This country was divided on the Bush Doctrine and it was harshly debated for months.

To act as if it is some complicated collection of foreign policy pieces is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it was based on a single fundamental tenet; that we had the right to pre-emptively strike any country if we believed that country was a threat to our security. It is what led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

For someone to feign that they do not know what it is because it is complicated or "made up" seems disingenous to me. And it is inconceivable considering the conditions in the world today that anyone who is striving to be a heartbeat away from the presidency doesn't know how to answer that question.

Considering that her base is willing to overlook her shortcomings in that area it would have served her better to admit that she didn't know what it was instead of trying to act like she did and still not answer the question.


It's a made up title by pundants. If we are talking about an actual piece of legislation, that's one thing, but we aren't. I had never heard the term until yesterday.

penchief
09-12-2008, 09:44 AM
I had never heard the term until yesterday.

Wow. You clearly haven't been paying attention.

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 09:47 AM
It's a made up title by pundants. If we are talking about an actual piece of legislation, that's one thing, but we aren't. I had never heard the term until yesterday.

Jeebus.

As was stated previously, you're not running for VPOTUS. You're allowed to to be ignorant. (Although, if you truly had never heard the term prior to yesterday, why tf are you in this thread?)

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 09:48 AM
Wow. You clearly haven't been paying attention.


I pay as much attention as anyone else. So what are we really asking her here based on Bayon's reply to mine? So we knock out an opponent before they have a chance to strike? What would you do? Getting past diplomacy and proper intelligence, what would you do? Let them hit us first? I can see rationals for both. Either way, you're going to war.
.

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 09:50 AM
Jeebus.

As was stated previously, you're not running for VPOTUS. You're allowed to to be ignorant. (Although, if you truly had never heard the term prior to yesterday, why tf are you in this thread?)

Doesn't matter if I am running for VP or not, and I'll discuss topics here within the guidelines...so now that you've gotten that all out of your system, let's get back to where the rubber meets the road. Look at my previous post.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 09:53 AM
It's a made up title by pundants. If we are talking about an actual piece of legislation, that's one thing, but we aren't. I had never heard the term until yesterday.

Truman Doctrine
Reagan Doctrine
Carter Doctrine
Clinton Doctrine
Bush Doctrine
Nixon Doctrine
Eisenhower Doctrine
Kennedy Doctrine
Johnson Doctrine
Rumsfeld Doctrine
Weinberger Doctrine


None of these are legislation and no one said that they were. They are, however all standards of operation undertaken by various administrations in the area of foreign policy and are given the name of the sitting president (or SecDEF/ Joint Chiefs Chairman) as such.

Chiefnj2
09-12-2008, 09:56 AM
Palin not familiar with the Bush Doctrine ..

... neither are 99% of the voters who support her. It's a non-issue.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 09:59 AM
Palin not familiar with the Bush Doctrine ..

... neither are 99% of the voters who support her. It's a non-issue.

It's not about the ones who support her lockstep, it's about the ones who don't know yet or are tenuous in their support. Then again, idiocy seems to reign supreme in American politics. Why have a competent world leader when you can have someone who is completely unqualified to run but is just like you?

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 09:59 AM
Truman Doctrine
Reagan Doctrine
Carter Doctrine
Clinton Doctrine
Bush Doctrine
Nixon Doctrine
Eisenhower Doctrine
Kennedy Doctrine
Johnson Doctrine
Rumsfeld Doctrine
Weinberger Doctrine


None of these are legislation and no one said that they were. They are, however all standards of operation undertaken by various administrations in the area of foreign policy and are given the name of the sitting president (or SecDEF/ Joint Chiefs Chairman) as such.

They are made up titles that don't truly represent anything. If you going to ask here about a specific policy, go for it. Why all the phoney outrage? This campaign is about real topics and peoples lives. Come on.

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 10:01 AM
Doesn't matter if I am running for VP or not, and I'll discuss topics here within the guidelines...so now that you've gotten that all out of your system, let's get back to where the rubber meets the road. Look at my previous post.

Oh, you mean this post?

The "Bush Doctrine" is just a made up name to collect various foreign policy pieces. It's not actually a piece of legislation.

Yea, it's just all made up. Not even important. That''s exactly what you're conveying. Granted, reading tone into a post is very difficult. So if I'm wrong, I apologize.

The doctrine is not a "first strike" doctrine. It's a pre-emptive strike doctrine that goes against every policy the US has adopted in the last 35 years. I think you're confusing the two.

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 10:02 AM
They are made up titles that don't truly represent anything. If you going to ask here about a specific policy, go for it. Why all the phoney outrage? This campaign is about real topics and peoples lives. Come on.

Oh man. Henry Garcia, what am I to beleave?

vailpass
09-12-2008, 10:03 AM
Who cares so long as she is familiar with the Trimmed Bush Doctrine?
In particular the Landing Strip clause.

Chiefnj2
09-12-2008, 10:03 AM
It's not about the ones who support her lockstep, it's about the ones who don't know yet or are tenuous in their support. Then again, idiocy seems to reign supreme in American politics. Why have a competent world leader when you can have someone who is completely unqualified to run but is just like you?

Attacking Palin for not knowing the Bush Doctrine is a perfect example of how the Dems are going to lose the election.

Dem attack this week - Palin doesn't know the Bush Doctrine.
Rep attack this week - Obama wants to teach 6 year olds how to ****.

I'd say that at least 75% of the undecided voters do not know what the Bush doctrine is, nor do they care. Those 75% do know what ****ing is. They will accept the latter argument and focus on it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:03 AM
They are made up titles that don't truly represent anything. If you going to ask here about a specific policy, go for it. Why all the phoney outrage? This campaign is about real topics and peoples lives. Come on.

They only represent a fundamental aspect of the foreign policy stance of each of the above administrations, but since foreign policy really isn't important (as McCain would obviously tell you), why should we even argue about it?

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 10:04 AM
Who cares so long as she is familiar with the trimmed bush doctrine?

Like I said, if she gets confused just furiously cross those legs. I'll lose my train of thought faster than ROY at a Kentucky cattle auction.

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 10:04 AM
I see that you still resort to the grade school comeback as a substitute for reason.

When all you do is hack up DNC talking points...don't you have some
important Olberman fan club meeting to go to or something.

All I see you guys do is pile on people who dodn't agree with your thinking.

vailpass
09-12-2008, 10:05 AM
Like I said, if she gets confused just furiously cross those legs. I'll lose my train of thought faster than ROY at a Kentucky cattle auction.

ROFL

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 10:06 AM
When all you do is hack up DNC talking points...don't you have some
important Olberman fan club meeting to go to or something.

All I see you guys do is pile on people who dodn't agree with your thinking.

Henry, seriously. Get a spell checker. You're not a bad guy, but you are extremely slow witted and have serious issues with the language.

Post in crayon. Anything to make it look pretty.

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 10:06 AM
Oh, you mean this post?



Yea, it's just all made up. Not even important. That''s exactly what you're conveying. Granted, reading tone into a post is very difficult. So if I'm wrong, I apologize.

The doctrine is not a "first strike" doctrine. It's a pre-emptive strike doctrine that goes against every policy the US has adopted in the last 35 years. I think you're confusing the two.


The pieces within are important, but what could make up said doctrine is completely subjective. So again, what is really being asked?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:06 AM
Attacking Palin for not knowing the Bush Doctrine is a perfect example of how the Dems are going to lose the election.

Dem attack this week - Palin doesn't know the Bush Doctrine.
Rep attack this week - Obama wants to teach 6 year olds how to ****.

I'd say that at least 75% of the undecided voters do not know what the Bush doctrine is, nor do they care. Those 75% do know what ****ing is. They will accept the latter argument and focus on it.

I'm not underestimating the stupidity of the American electorate. There is no way you can properly situate how dumb the average voter in this country is.

I do think that you have a valid point, but if the country is honestly that stupid, they can vote themselves into ruin.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Attacking Palin for not knowing the Bush Doctrine is a perfect example of how the Dems are going to lose the election.

Dem attack this week - Palin doesn't know the Bush Doctrine.
Rep attack this week - Obama wants to teach 6 year olds how to ****.

I'd say that at least 75% of the undecided voters do not know what the Bush doctrine is, nor do they care. Those 75% do know what ****ing is. They will accept the latter argument and focus on it.

:LOL: :thumb:

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Who cares so long as she is familiar with the Trimmed Bush Doctrine? I particular the Landing Strip clause.

:dom: no doubt about that

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:08 AM
When all you do is hack up DNC talking points...don't you have some
important Olberman fan club meeting to go to or something.

All I see you guys do is pile on people who dodn't agree with your thinking.

This is why you really shouldn't engage in these discussions. You aren't mentally equipped to do so, and you just end up making an ass out of yourself and damaging the credibility of those who hold a similar world view.

penchief doesn't parrot Dem talking points. In fact, he's much more of a Ralph Nader/Noam Chomsky type liberal. There is a fundamental difference between the two, and your attempts to obfuscate that only underscore your own ignorance.

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 10:10 AM
They only represent a fundamental aspect of the foreign policy stance of each of the above administrations, but since foreign policy really isn't important (as McCain would obviously tell you), why should we even argue about it?


It's still a subjective collection of policy.

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 10:10 AM
This is why you really shouldn't engage in these discussions. You aren't mentally equipped to do so, and you just end up making an ass out of yourself and damaging the credibility of those who hold a similar world view.

penchief doesn't parrot Dem talking points. In fact, he's much more of a Ralph Nader/Noam Chomsky type liberal. There is a fundamental difference between the two, and your attempts to obfuscate that only underscore your own ignorance.


Uh... I'm going to guess that this went by so quickly the only noise was a resounding sonic "BOOM".

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 10:11 AM
Henry, seriously. Get a spell checker. You're not a bad guy, but you are extremely slow witted and have serious issues with the language.

Post in crayon. Anything to make it look pretty.

My fingers don't hit the right keys some times...its no big deal really. But thanks for the nice words I think.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 10:12 AM
This is why you really shouldn't engage in these discussions. You aren't mentally equipped to do so, and you just end up making an ass out of yourself and damaging the credibility of those who hold a similar world view.

Way to disprove his point by doing what heís talking about. :thumb:

penchief doesn't parrot Dem talking points.

:LOL: :bong:

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:12 AM
It's still a subjective collection of policy.

Do you really want to go down a line of reductio ad absurdum? Every policy is by nature of its creation as a policy subjective. It leaves certain things out in favor of others. If this is all you can really argue, you're a one legged man trying to defend against a leg sweep.

Fat Elvis
09-12-2008, 10:13 AM
This campaign is about real topics and peoples lives. Come on.

Like real hockey moms and first dudes....

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:14 AM
Way to disprove his point by doing what heís talking about. :thumb:



:LOL: :bong:

That's rich.

The only way that you could add any substance to this forum would be if we were cooking a human stew and you offered to jump in the blender.

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 10:16 AM
My fingers don't hit the right keys some times...its no big deal really.

Don't ever complain about public education Henry.

Fat Elvis
09-12-2008, 10:16 AM
I'm not underestimating the stupidity of the American electorate. There is no way you can properly situate how dumb the average voter in this country is.

I do think that you have a valid point, but if the country is honestly that stupid, they can vote themselves into ruin.


Hmmm, someone hasn't been paying attention the last eight years.....

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 10:16 AM
That's rich.

The only way that you could add any substance to this forum would be if we were cooking a human stew and you offered to jump in the blender.

But at least you disproved the assertion with an example of substantive posting. :thumb:

penchief
09-12-2008, 10:17 AM
I pay as much attention as anyone else. So what are we really asking her here based on Bayon's reply to mine? So we knock out an opponent before they have a chance to strike? What would you do? Getting past diplomacy and proper intelligence, what would you do? Let them hit us first? I can see rationals for both. Either way, you're going to war.
.

Well, the gist of this post was not about whether you or I agreed with the Doctrine of Pre-emption (The Bush Doctrine) but whether the person striving to be a heartbeat away from the presidency should know what it is.

On that count, I would say that Sarah Palin has failed her first test miserably. Everybody, including you, that was paying attention to the debate that consumed this country prior to Bush invading Iraq should have known what the Bush Doctrine was.

It was called both the Doctrine of Pre-emption and The Bush Doctrine because the terms were interchangable. It is called the Bush Doctrine because prior to Bush this country had never embraced pre-emption as a legitimate strategy. He was the one who advocated it. The idea of pre-emption had always been analogous with military aggression (and rightfully so).

And no, I don't agree with the doctrine of pre-emption as a justification for attacking another country. I think that the administration's wholesale deceit, their desire to go to war in Iraq prior to 9/11, and the eco-political ideology that motivated them are the best arguments as to why The Bush Doctrine is a bad idea. It can be used to wage unjustified military aggression. It is the equivalent of "shoot first, ask questions later." It's a backward step for humankind, IMO.

If Bush had really believed in pre-empting the attacks of 9/11 he would have listened to those who tried to tell him about the al-Qaeda threat, he would have responded to all of the information that pointed to the attack leading up to 9/11, and he would have embraced the very same police efforts that have been proven to be effective in preventing terrorist attacks.

Instead, he used the Doctrine of Pre-emption to justify an invasion adn an occupation that he wanted and the neocons wanted before they even took office.

vailpass
09-12-2008, 10:18 AM
Hmmm, someone hasn't been paying attention the last eight years.....

Eight years ago Hamass hadn't sprouted hair on his balls yet much less tuned in to this country's electorate tendencies.:evil:

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:21 AM
Hmmm, someone hasn't been paying attention the last eight years.....

It was a sheer act of imbecility to re-elect Bush. To elect McCain given his policies after another four years of this borders on Precambrian levels of intellect.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 10:26 AM
It was a sheer act of imbecility to re-elect Bush. To elect McCain given his policies after another four years of this borders on Precambrian levels of intellect.

ROFL

Apt description.

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 10:27 AM
This is why you really shouldn't engage in these discussions. You aren't mentally equipped to do so, and you just end up making an ass out of yourself and damaging the credibility of those who hold a similar world view.

penchief doesn't parrot Dem talking points. In fact, he's much more of a Ralph Nader/Noam Chomsky type liberal. There is a fundamental difference between the two, and your attempts to obfuscate that only underscore your own ignorance.


There you go again hamass, talking out of your azz again and making a complete fool/tool of yourself. The only cerebral challenged folks around here are the ones that keep piling on Governor Sarah Palin. The folks piling
on Governor Palin are damaging the credibility of those who want Barry to
win.

If you think your attempt at belittling someone on a BB makes you feel
superior- by all means knock yourself out. Your waisting your time and it
only reflects on your own lack of confidence.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 10:29 AM
There you go again hamass, talking out of your azz again and making a complete fool/tool of yourself. The only cerebral challenged folks around here are the ones that keep piling on Governor Sarah Palin. The folks piling
on Governor Palin are damaging the credibility of those who want Barry to
win.

If you think your attempt at belittling someone on a BB makes you feel
superior- by all means knock yourself out. Your waisting your time and it
only reflects on your own lack of confidence.

What exactly did you say in that nonsense?


Radar Chief - this is why it's hard to always reply by taking down their arguments. Sometimes they just don't have them or aren't worthy.

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 10:31 AM
Don't ever complain about public education Henry.

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog :D

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:31 AM
There you go again hamass, talking out of your azz again and making a complete fool/tool of yourself. The only cerebral challenged folks around here are the ones that keep piling on Governor Sarah Palin. The folks piling
on Governor Palin are damaging the credibility of those who want Barry to
win.

If you think your attempt at belittling someone on a BB makes you feel
superior- by all means knock yourself out. Your waisting your time and it
only reflects on your own lack of confidence.

PM me your home address. I will mail you a textbook on English Grammar.

penchief
09-12-2008, 10:32 AM
When all you do is hack up DNC talking points...don't you have some
important Olberman fan club meeting to go to or something.

All I see you guys do is pile on people who dodn't agree with your thinking.

You continue to make this accusation yet I am the one who can articulate my own beliefs and you are the one who resorts to talking points, namecalling, and insinuation without offering any substance.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:33 AM
You continue to make this accusation yet I am the one who can articulate my own beliefs and you are the one who resorts to talking points, namecalling, and insinuation without offering any substance.

Well it is the traditional Republican modus operandi. Repeat the lie until they stop asking the question.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 10:38 AM
Radar Chief - this is why it's hard to always reply by taking down their arguments. Sometimes they just don't have them or aren't worthy.

If you lack the ability or will to ďtake down their argumentĒ you can always, like, not respond.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:42 AM
If you lack the ability or will to ďtake down their argumentĒ you can always, like, not respond.

It's somewhat difficult to have a constructive argument with someone who

A) Doesn't grasp basic grammar
B) Doesn't understand the topic at hand
C) Lacks any critical thinking or reasoning skills
D) Will deflect rather than rebut.


Just because the other party won't wave a white flag doesn't mean that they've somehow won the argument or achieved a stalemate. It means that they are too stupid to realize when they've been owned.

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 10:45 AM
Well, the gist of this post was not about whether you or I agreed with the Doctrine of Pre-emption (The Bush Doctrine) but whether the person striving to be a heartbeat away from the presidency should know what it is.

On that count, I would say that Sarah Palin has failed her first test miserably. Everybody, including you, that was paying attention to the debate that consumed this country prior to Bush invading Iraq should have known what the Bush Doctrine was.

It was called both the Doctrine of Pre-emption and The Bush Doctrine because the terms were interchangable. It is called the Bush Doctrine because prior to Bush this country had never embraced pre-emption as a legitimate strategy. He was the one who advocated it. The idea of pre-emption had always been analogous with military aggression (and rightfully so).

And no, I don't agree with the doctrine of pre-emption as a justification for attacking another country. I think that the administration's wholesale deceit, their desire to go to war in Iraq prior to 9/11, and the eco-political ideology that motivated them are the best arguments as to why The Bush Doctrine is a bad idea. It can be used to wage unjustified military aggression. It is the equivalent of "shoot first, ask questions later." It's a backward step for humankind, IMO.

If Bush had really believed in pre-empting the attacks of 9/11 he would have listened to those who tried to tell him about the al-Qaeda threat, he would have responded to all of the information that pointed to the attack leading up to 9/11, and he would have embraced the very same police efforts that have been proven to be effective in preventing terrorist attacks.

Instead, he used the Doctrine of Pre-emption to justify an invasion adn an occupation that he wanted and the neocons wanted before they even took office.

So what's being asked is: What does she think about pre-emptive war? Not "what is the Bush Doctrine", because it's subjective. Other than that this is all phoney outrage and what's important is her beliefs on pre-emptive war. And I could make a case for either side of that argument with any hypothetical outcome.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 10:45 AM
I donít get what the big deal is anyway. Itís not like she didnít realize a member of her own party is wheelchair bound and told them to stand up.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C2mzbuRgnI4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C2mzbuRgnI4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 10:46 AM
I donít get what the big deal is anyway. Itís not like she didnít realize a member of her own party is wheelchair bound and told them to stand up.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C2mzbuRgnI4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C2mzbuRgnI4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As I said, if you can't rebut, deflect.

FWIW, Chuck himself said that has happened to him dozens of times over the last several years. He's also not Ted Kennedy. He's a local politician.

Donger
09-12-2008, 10:48 AM
Just so we're clear, the American electorate is "stupid" and "ignorant" if they don't vote for Barack Hussein, but they are "wise" and "informed" if they do?

Is that accurate?

vailpass
09-12-2008, 10:53 AM
Just so we're clear, the American electorate is "stupid" and "ignorant" if they don't vote for Barack Hussein, but they are "wise" and "informed" if they do?

Is that accurate?

Stupid, ignorant, and racist to be precise.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 10:53 AM
It's somewhat difficult to have a constructive argument with someone who

A) Doesn't grasp basic grammar
B) Doesn't understand the topic at hand
C) Lacks any critical thinking or reasoning skills
D) Will deflect rather than rebut.


Just because the other party won't wave a white flag doesn't mean that they've somehow won the argument or achieved a stalemate. It means that they are too stupid to realize when they've been owned.

Thatís exactly what Iím talking about. You do have the ability to not argue with people such as you described, right?

A Twain quote hit home a while back, at least I think it was a Twain quote and Iíll probably butcher it anyway, but it went like this.
ďNever argue with an idiot. Onlookers wonít notice that there is a difference.Ē
If you have a good argument let it set at that. I used to justify going into the gutter with someone by thinking I was returning fire, now I realize all I was doing is giving someone without an argument a reason to keep posting.
Notice I havenít been around as much lately? Thatís because Iíve reassessed my posting habits.

Chiefnj2
09-12-2008, 10:56 AM
I'm not underestimating the stupidity of the American electorate. There is no way you can properly situate how dumb the average voter in this country is.

I do think that you have a valid point, but if the country is honestly that stupid, they can vote themselves into ruin.

A large percentage of people will beleive the McCain/Palin advertisement. That's why Obama should have swung back - hard. He should have called them liars. Don't sugarcoat things and say the ads are perverse or misconstrue facts. Call them liars and repeat 100x. Throw it back at McCain by saying why doesn't McCain want preschoolers to learn that it is NOT okay for people to touch them in inappropriate places. Let him go on the defensive.

Obama and Biden have let great opportunities pass them by these last two weeks.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 11:00 AM
As I said, if you can't rebut, deflect.

FWIW, Chuck himself said that has happened to him dozens of times over the last several years. He's also not Ted Kennedy. He's a local politician.

Pointing out hypocrisy is deflection? And claiming deflection from the hypocrisy point isnít a deflection itself?
Iím poking fun at you demagogues that have nothing better to do with your day than feign indignation by pointing out that feigned indignation only flows in one direction.
If you need to feel itís a ďdeflectionĒ to justify your made up outrage, then by all means go for what you know.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-12-2008, 11:08 AM
Pointing out hypocrisy is deflection? And claiming deflection from the hypocrisy point isnít a deflection itself?
Iím poking fun at you demagogues that have nothing better to do with your day than feign indignation by pointing out that feigned indignation only flows in one direction.
If you need to feel itís a ďdeflectionĒ to justify your made up outrage, then by all means go for what you know.

So once again, Biden not knowing that a local politician whom he has never met before is wheelchair bound is somehow analogous to Sarah Palin not knowing what the current administration's foreign policy doctrine is?

That's awesome.

penchief
09-12-2008, 11:12 AM
Just so we're clear, the American electorate is "stupid" and "ignorant" if they don't vote for Barack Hussein, but they are "wise" and "informed" if they do?

Is that accurate?

They're definitely stupid if they vote for Barack Hussein since nobody by that name is running. I think it is accurate to say that your lack of knowledge as to who the candidates are makes you "uninformed."

penchief
09-12-2008, 11:13 AM
So what's being asked is: What does she think about pre-emptive war? Not "what is the Bush Doctrine", because it's subjective. Other than that this is all phoney outrage and what's important is her beliefs on pre-emptive war. And I could make a case for either side of that argument with any hypothetical outcome.

Did she even give a difinitive answer to the question once Gibson had to spell it out for her?

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 11:23 AM
Just so we're clear, the American electorate is "stupid" and "ignorant" if they don't vote for Barack Hussein, but they are "wise" and "informed" if they do?

Is that accurate?

No, not really. The reason they're stupid is because they don't see through the bullshit. Like Palin's not knowing the Bush doctrine. Or getting caught on what she said regarding "god's plan".

They're stupid because they're influenced by news stories like Obama is a Muslim or Palin's son isn't hers.

They're stupid because they're influenced by one issue and one issue only.

They're stupid for a variety of reasons. Mostly because they cannot identify the rhetoric from the policy.


As someone else said:

They aren't going to see not knowing the Bush doctrine as a bad thing because they don't know what the Bush doctrine is. They are going to identify with child molestation because they know what that is. All the while, they won't realize that a) a leader of a country SHOULD know what that is and b) Obama isn't a child molester.

Donger
09-12-2008, 11:26 AM
No, not really. The reason they're stupid is because they don't see through the bullshit. Like Palin's not knowing the Bush doctrine. Or getting caught on what she said regarding "god's plan".

They're stupid because they're influenced by news stories like Obama is a Muslim or Palin's son isn't hers.

They're stupid because they're influenced by one issue and one issue only.

They're stupid for a variety of reasons. Mostly because they cannot identify the rhetoric from the policy.


As someone else said:

They aren't going to see not knowing the Bush doctrine as a bad thing because they don't know what the Bush doctrine is. They are going to identify with child molestation because they know what that is. All the while, they won't realize that a) a leader of a country SHOULD know what that is and b) Obama isn't a child molester.

So, yes, voters who don't vote for Barack Hussein are stupid, because they can't see "the truth."

Thank you for you answer.

Ultra Peanut
09-12-2008, 11:29 AM
If you vote for McCain, you're either selfish or retarded. Or both.

I am completely serious.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 11:32 AM
So, yes, voters who don't vote for Barack Hussein are stupid, because they can't see "the truth."

Thank you for you answer.

Is that what I said?

No.

Donger
09-12-2008, 11:35 AM
Is that what I said?

No.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Were you not referring to people who would not be voting for Barack Hussein?

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 11:36 AM
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Were you not referring to people who would not be voting for Barack Hussein?

No, the electorate in general.

Donger
09-12-2008, 11:37 AM
No, the electorate in general.

Fair enough. Thank you.

BIG_DADDY
09-12-2008, 11:37 AM
If you vote for McCain, you're either selfish or retarded. Or both.

I am completely serious.

Someone is running a little high on the estrogen today.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 11:41 AM
Fair enough. Thank you.

Now, personally, a vote for McCain is a vote for absolutely no change whatsoever. I'd rather you vote for Barr, Paul, or write in any candidate than vote for McCain.

I'm going to be honest, McCain scared me before because of his clear "saying anything to get elected" mantra. However, McCain's ticket scares me more with Palin. Plain and simple.

For me, a vote for McCain won't end the country as we know it like many anti-Obama people often trot out. However, it won't get us anywhere. To get anywhere you have to take a risk; whether that risk is a third party or an "inexperienced" (in the minds of the Republican crowd) President.

Donger
09-12-2008, 11:47 AM
Now, personally, a vote for McCain is a vote for absolutely no change whatsoever.

Other than greater fiscal discipline, I don't really want change.

Ultra Peanut
09-12-2008, 11:49 AM
Someone is running a little high on the estrogen today.Less testosterone makes you less aggressive. You haven't seen my chill side yet.

Mr. Laz
09-12-2008, 11:51 AM
isn't not knowing the Bush doctrine a good thing?

penchief
09-12-2008, 11:53 AM
So, yes, voters who don't vote for Barack Hussein are stupid, because they can't see "the truth."

Thank you for you answer.

No. Voters who don't vote for Barack Hussein will doing so because they won't see his name on the ballot. Duh.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 12:02 PM
So once again, Biden not knowing that a local politician whom he has never met before is wheelchair bound is somehow analogous to Sarah Palin not knowing what the demagogues want to call the current administration's foreign policy doctrine is?

That's awesome.

FYP.

HolmeZz
09-12-2008, 12:21 PM
I had never heard the term until yesterday.

Hmmm.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/jrc6248/bushdoctrine.jpg

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=129577&highlight=bush+doctrine

WilliamTheIrish
09-12-2008, 12:33 PM
If you lack the ability or will to “take down their argument” you can always, like, not respond.

You consider Henry's 'argument' an argument?

Follwed by "You don't have to respond"?

Are you aware this is the DC forum?

Garcia Bronco
09-12-2008, 12:38 PM
Hmmm.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/jrc6248/bushdoctrine.jpg

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=129577&highlight=bush+doctrine


LOL. The point still stands. I hadn't heard the term until yesterday.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 12:39 PM
You consider Henry's 'argument' an argument?

Where did I post that? I didnít, I was poking a little fun at Hamas for responding in the same way Henry just pointed out to him.
I thought that was pretty clear, at least Hamas seems to have figured it out. :shrug:

Follwed by "You don't have to respond"?

Are you aware that is the DC forum?

Even people that live in the desert try to plant trees. Whatís wrong with trying to improve the atmosphere of your home?

J Diddy
09-12-2008, 12:39 PM
Other than greater fiscal discipline, I don't really want change.


According to McCain he too is running on a platform of change.

Donger
09-12-2008, 12:41 PM
According to McCain he too is running on a platform of change.

I don't care.

Chiefnj2
09-12-2008, 12:47 PM
Owned.

J Diddy
09-12-2008, 12:50 PM
I don't care.

So why are you voting for him?

Donger
09-12-2008, 12:52 PM
So why are you voting for him?

If I vote "for" McCain, it will be a vote against Barack Hussein.

However, even if I supported McCain, the "change" slogan does nothing for me. If it does for you, that's fine.

penchief
09-12-2008, 12:53 PM
If I vote "for" McCain, it will be a vote against Barack Hussein.

However, even if I supported McCain, the "change" slogan does nothing for me. If it does for you, that's fine.

You'll vote for McCain because you know that his message of change is only lip service.

A vote for Barack Obama would also be vote against Barack Hussein, silly.

Donger
09-12-2008, 12:54 PM
You'll vote for McCain because you know that his message of change is only lip service.

A vote for Barack Obama would also be vote against Barack Hussein, silly.

No, I'll vote "for" McCain if Colorado looks to be in danger of a Barack Hussein. If it isn't, I won't vote at all.

HolmeZz
09-12-2008, 12:55 PM
No, I'll vote "for" McCain if Colorado looks to be in danger of a Barack Hussein. If it isn't, I won't vote at all.

Other than yourself, who are you trying to convince?

Donger
09-12-2008, 12:56 PM
Other than yourself, who are you trying to convince?

Convince of what?

HolmeZz
09-12-2008, 12:56 PM
That you won't be voting for McCain regardless.

Donger
09-12-2008, 12:57 PM
That you won't be voting for McCain regardless.

No one.

penchief
09-12-2008, 01:10 PM
No, I'll vote "for" McCain if Colorado looks to be in danger of a Barack Hussein. If it isn't, I won't vote at all.

So I guess you won't be voting for McCain since there is nothing to fear from someone who isn't even on the ticket.

J Diddy
09-12-2008, 01:13 PM
No, I'll vote "for" McCain if Colorado looks to be in danger of a Barack Hussein. If it isn't, I won't vote at all.


You chose this country to come over and not participate in the elections unless it's the role of spoiler?

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 01:16 PM
[QUOTE=Radar Chief;5008651]Where did I post that? I didnít, I was poking a little fun at Hamas for responding in the same way Henry just pointed out to him. I thought that was pretty clear, at least Hamas seems to have figured it out. :shrug:

QUOTE]


RC, When you use they're tactics back at them, most of them go wtf
and go balistic.

Donger
09-12-2008, 01:21 PM
You chose this country to come over and not participate in the elections unless it's the role of spoiler?

I have voted in every election since becoming naturalized. I would prefer a candidate that I could vote "for" this time, sure.

J Diddy
09-12-2008, 01:24 PM
I have voted in every election since becoming naturalized. I would prefer a candidate that I could vote "for" this time, sure.

write in?

:shrug:

Carlota69
09-12-2008, 01:39 PM
I find it interesting we have a Republican candidate who doesnt seem to understand world issues. She doesnt know (or didnt know) what a Bush Doctrine or any other presidents Doctrine is. She's been out of the country once, and that was in the last year, but she's all set to possibly be the president of the USA--Leader of the Free world. Hell, no one is allowed to ask her questions, unless completely set up and even then she looks completley inept. But thats ok, she's Gov of ALaska and she hunts and owns guns. Oh, lets not forget, she's hot. :shake:

And again, her grasp of the issues and whatnot is important because John Sydney is so damn old and the job is so incredibly daunting and difficult. I dont think he can make the full term. I just dont. So her stance, views, credentials are just as important as someone running for the higher office.

Radar Chief
09-12-2008, 01:54 PM
Oh, lets not forget, she's hot. :shake:

Eh, I've done worse. ;)

J Diddy
09-12-2008, 01:56 PM
Eh, I've done worse. ;)

Lord knows we all have.

Ultra Peanut
09-12-2008, 02:16 PM
DAMN GINA

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_iogEFNlRpg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_iogEFNlRpg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Cannibal
09-12-2008, 02:22 PM
DAMN GINA

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_iogEFNlRpg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_iogEFNlRpg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

In my opinion, that is an effective ad.

penguinz
09-12-2008, 02:25 PM
DAMN GINA

<object height="344" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_iogEFNlRpg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>wow

J Diddy
09-12-2008, 02:26 PM
In my opinion, that is an effective ad.

I agree, but I really would like some more of going after McCain

patteeu
09-12-2008, 04:37 PM
How about the one I posted from the WH NSC site, shouldn't that be pretty accurate?

It doesn't matter so much what the "official" definition is as much as whether or not everyone has the same understanding of the term. If it's a common term that means the same thing to everyone then her hesitation means one thing. If the phrase can mean different things to different people (which appears to be the case to me), it could mean something entirely different.

My personal opinion is that it's more important that she has a reasonable outlook on foreign policy than it is that she's fully conversant with the Washington vernacular and as a mere VP candidate, even that isn't very important to me. The most important thing about the Palin pick has nothing to do with her and everything to do with what it tells us about John McCain. From a conservative's point of view, it's somewhat reassuring that he picked a moderately conservative outsider. It remains to be seen whether she can hold her own in the debates and whether she can avoid an Admiral Stockdale or Jack Kemp moment.

|Zach|
09-12-2008, 04:40 PM
I don't support a Palin Vice Presidency, but I did buy drugs from a polar bear once. So I guess I support her a little bit

|Zach|
09-12-2008, 04:47 PM
There's a great correlation at work here:

The more damaging or serious an issue, the more actively Ringleader will participate in the thread, spinning.

Republicans are definitely good at triage.

Nice job, Baghdad Bob!
To be fair to Palin, Charlie totally blindsided her with questions.

Taco John
09-12-2008, 05:02 PM
It doesn't matter so much what the "official" definition is as much as whether or not everyone has the same understanding of the term. If it's a common term that means the same thing to everyone then her hesitation means one thing. If the phrase can mean different things to different people (which appears to be the case to me), it could mean something entirely different.


I think that the person who you are trying to fool the most with your defense on this is yourself.

patteeu
09-12-2008, 05:13 PM
I think that the person who you are trying to fool the most with your defense on this is yourself.

Maybe. I don't think it's very important though. If she were running for POTUS it would bother me more, but even then it wouldn't be anything close to a show stopper. It doesn't compare to red flags like, for example, the time Barack Obama said one thing about NAFTA to his domestic primary audience and then one of his top economic advisers told the Canadians not to worry because the campaign statements weren't sincere.

bkkcoh
09-13-2008, 08:08 PM
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html)

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.