With an almost hour-long interview on the National Stage; and the only “slip-up” is about a Doctrine that is ill-defined and not agreed upon by anyone?
Biden should be afraid; VERY afraid…
Mufasa
[quote]lixy wrote:
<<<>>>
I’m a libertarian socialist.
Power to the people, first and foremost. No hierarchies. No coercive or violent institutions. No borders. Everything else is democratically decided on a local level.[/quote]
Here’s a clue.
When I say “living in reality”… this isn’t it.
Forget about the Palin interview, were going nowhere with that.
The world IS a coercive and violent place. This is why the biggest gun wins. This is also why our gun being the biggest for a while now has been good for the world overall. Would you please name for me another capable nation that you would have rather seen in this position?
Forget about your “libertarian socialist” vision too which aside from being a fantasy and a contradiction in terms, would also get you beheaded by serious historical Islamic groups.
It’s not that a borderless one for all all for one, each according to his ability to each according to his need (VOLUNTARILY) global society wouldn’t be a vast improvement over what we have now. It’s that it’s colossally unrealistic.
The first side to put down it’s guns in good faith would be the first to get it’s ass shot off by one of the other sides. That’s the very problem with the American liberal diplomacy view. It keeps thinking the world would fall in love with itself if we would just be groovier to everybody.
It ain’t so man. You’re kidding yourself and the sooner you stop it the more contentment you will find.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
here’s only so much crap you can get past the population before they rise up and kick your butt.
Hey Lixy, just curious…what “population” are you talking about here?
Religious minorities, women, apostates, atheists, and homosexuals in Islamic nations.[/quote]
The reason I was asking is he thinks the US is the British Empire several centuries ago. I mean, what colonies do we have? I know we are currently occupying Iraq, but is it an actual colony?
edit- Sloth, good comeback.
I just love the fact that the republican’s have to defend this garbage. It’s really getting good to see how they are trying to twist this into anything besides the horrible attempt at a hail mary throw that it is.
I finally learned how to speak republican: How to Speak Republican - YouTube
[quote]Force wrote:
I just love the fact that the republican’s have to defend this garbage. It’s really getting good to see how they are trying to twist this into anything besides the horrible attempt at a hail mary throw that it is.
I finally learned how to speak republican: How to Speak Republican - YouTube
[/quote]
This coming from a guy with Opie as his avatar. I just love the judgmental prejudice you guys ooze from every pore.
I wouldn’t really care what definition of the Bush Doctrine she gave, but she obviously either hadn’t ever heard of it, or had no idea what he was talking about. It’s not that she was confused about “which definition,” it was that she didn’t even know what he was talking about that is concerning.
Granted, she has time to learn these things and get her knowledge of global affairs up to par, but it is worthy of concern. It’s not like she was asked “Who is the president of Ghana?” or some other random question. It’s kindof important to know what the current administration believes is the correct foreign policy. I hope she does better in the debates.
Doesn’t concern me one bit. If Gibson had asked her if she agreed with Bush on “this” or “that”, it would have been a legitimate question. If someone came up to you and asked you what the “Bush Doctrine” is, how would you respond? Because I honestly have no idea.
Can anyone show me where this Doctrine is written down and/or identified? As far as I’m concerned, this was just another attempt by Gibson to make Palin look bad. The “Bush Doctrine”, whatever that is, is almost certainly widely derided amongst Gibson’s crowd, so it’s just another “gotcha” attmept.
[quote]Force wrote:
I just love the fact that the republican’s have to defend this garbage. It’s really getting good to see how they are trying to twist this into anything besides the horrible attempt at a hail mary throw that it is.
I finally learned how to speak republican: How to Speak Republican - YouTube
[/quote]
I love how democrats think that they are smarter, more informed, and just plain better than everyone else. I love the elitist, condescending, haughty, holier than thou attitude of Obama supporters. I love how you can be defined, wholy, by democrats, simply by what political party you support. I love how democrats use childish name calling and insults when describing the republican part.
I love the pretentiousness and hypocrisy of the left. I love how they can judge everyone else by standards they create, then dismiss those standards when applying them to their own party.
I just LOVE the democrat party!
Hmm. My sarcasm detector is beeping, but I can’t figure out why. Stupid piece of shit was made in Taiwan…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Would you please name for me another capable nation that you would have rather seen in this position? [/quote]
Any other nation that is capable of taxing, enslaving and murdering to a larger extent than the US.
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Doesn’t concern me one bit. If Gibson had asked her if she agreed with Bush on “this” or “that”, it would have been a legitimate question. If someone came up to you and asked you what the “Bush Doctrine” is, how would you respond? Because I honestly have no idea.
Can anyone show me where this Doctrine is written down and/or identified? As far as I’m concerned, this was just another attempt by Gibson to make Palin look bad. The “Bush Doctrine”, whatever that is, is almost certainly widely derided amongst Gibson’s crowd, so it’s just another “gotcha” attmept. [/quote]
Are you serious? The Bush Doctrine is one of the most important parts of the Bush administration. Anyone who knows anything whatsoever about foreign affairs should know what this is. period.
If you don’t know what it is, that’s fine, you’re not going to potentially be the president. But the potential #2 woman ought to have a clue about what the current #1 man has been about. Quibbling over definitions is one thing, being completely ignorant is another.
Educate yourself, google scholar is free for everyone.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bush+Doctrine&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Thank you for the link. According to the materials at the link you posted, I can infer that the “Bush Doctrine” is apparently an arbitrary label applied to some of the general principals of Bush’s Foriegn Policies, used primarily by detractors of said policy. I think an even better descriptor can be found here:
According to this interpretation, I would say that Palin’s response was entirely reasonable, and those who are saying otherwise would have found no answer from her to be satisfactory. Thanks for the edumacation.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Would you please name for me another capable nation that you would have rather seen in this position?
Any other nation that is capable of taxing, enslaving and murdering to a larger extent than the US.[/quote]
I see…
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Thank you for the link. According to the materials at the link you posted, I can infer that the “Bush Doctrine” is apparently an arbitrary label applied to some of the general principals of Bush’s Foriegn Policies, used primarily by detractors of said policy. I think an even better descriptor can be found here:
Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term “Bush Doctrine,” and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush’s foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive “Bush Doctrines” in his book The Bush Tragedy,[2] while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.[3] Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush’s doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.[4]
According to this interpretation, I would say that Palin’s response was entirely reasonable, and those who are saying otherwise would have found no answer from her to be satisfactory. Thanks for the edumacation.[/quote]
Had she said what you just did, her response would have been acceptable. However, she clearly illustrated she did not understand a question that you, after a few moments of study, now (seem to) understand.
If you agree with the terminology or not, it is part of the policy discussion. To be completely ignorant of that discussion is fine for a “normal citizen” but unacceptable for one who wants to be the first in the line of succession.
The underlined is the meaning that most people use. Also, if you could include a link, we could better ascertain the quality of the text you cited.
I understand where you are coming from, but really in this instance, I would say that it was up to Gibson to make it clear what he was talking about. If it’s possible for the “Bush Doctrine” to have a variable or uncertain meaning, then I cannot fault Palin for asking for further clarification.
When it comes to the idea of pre-emptive wars, I would have to place myself in the “against” column. That said, I can understand why McCain and Palin might be hesitant to embrace or deny the validity of the strategy. On the one hand, they need to project an air of confidence and agression against any country that would align themselves against the United States.
On the other hand, I would say that the “experiment” in Iraq has been a failure. The war has lasted far too long and cost too many Iraqis their lives. In spite of what they may say, I really feel like the DOD have learned their lesson here. In the future, I’d say it’s highly unlikely that the US will attempt an invasion unless the country is attacked directly.
Also, sorry about the lack of linkage. I found that tidbit at Wiki.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Thank you for the link. According to the materials at the link you posted, I can infer that the “Bush Doctrine” is apparently an arbitrary label applied to some of the general principals of Bush’s Foriegn Policies, used primarily by detractors of said policy. I think an even better descriptor can be found here:
Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term “Bush Doctrine,” and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush’s foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive “Bush Doctrines” in his book The Bush Tragedy,[2] while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.[3] Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush’s doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.[4]
According to this interpretation, I would say that Palin’s response was entirely reasonable, and those who are saying otherwise would have found no answer from her to be satisfactory. Thanks for the edumacation.
Had she said what you just did, her response would have been acceptable. However, she clearly illustrated she did not understand a question that you, after a few moments of study, now (seem to) understand.
If you agree with the terminology or not, it is part of the policy discussion. To be completely ignorant of that discussion is fine for a “normal citizen” but unacceptable for one who wants to be the first in the line of succession.
The underlined is the meaning that most people use. Also, if you could include a link, we could better ascertain the quality of the text you cited. [/quote]
But, what about this text, if I underline it?
Who here thinks Obama would not have been similarly halting in his response if asked this identical question? I wouldn’t even have thought twice about it as a diminution of his qualifications on defense policy. This is a dumbass non issue.
^I haven’t decided who I’m voting for yet, but if I had to place a bet I would wager quite a bit that Obama would have responded knowing exactly what Gibson meant. And let’s be realistic, demonstrating that you aren’t familiar with the terminology or intricacies of national politics is definitely a ding against a candidate. Really I don’t see how this is arguable except by people who are so left or right wing that they are blinded by what they want to see rather than what exists.
[quote]ryanjm wrote:
^I haven’t decided who I’m voting for yet, but if I had to place a bet I would wager quite a bit that Obama would have responded knowing exactly what Gibson meant. And let’s be realistic, demonstrating that you aren’t familiar with the terminology or intricacies of national politics is definitely a ding against a candidate. Really I don’t see how this is arguable except by people who are so left or right wing that they are blinded by what they want to see rather than what exists.[/quote]
Have you heard Obama answer foreign policy questions? First he’s against it, then he’s for it, then you find out that both answers he gave were lies since he had already tried to get a deal done 3 months ago.
Never mind his incessantly irritating “uh’s” and Porky Pig-like stuttering.
^I did see the interview he gave w/O’Reilly and I didn’t notice anything bothersome with his speech patterns. He also gave pretty clear answers about most of the foreign policy stuff besides being guarded about Iran.
If you’ve got cites to lies I always like to read facts.