Re: Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin: The Thread
Posted: September 11 08, 8:04 pm
Whose accent is more grating to you, Palin's or Clinton's?
A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
https://www.gatewayredbirds.com/forum/
....ugh.....San Juan? Working hard to overcome his own physical disabilities as a youth? Taking on the Monopolistic Trusts that had overtaken the major U.S. Industries? Panama Canal? Great White Fleet? Environmental Protection during an Industrial Revolution, doing it not because of any threat of a worldwide disaster, but because it was the right and ethical thing to do? Personally trying to enlist in the U.S. Army after his Presidency to go over and fight?GatewaySnayke wrote:What in the name of Albert Pujols was McCain citing Teddy Roosevelt as a hero for?! Does he know ANYTHING about Roosevelt??
Yeah, and correct me if I'm wrong, but expanding the power of the federal government to regulate business, bust up the trusts, stand in favor of labor unions and protect the environment are all things Republicans are against.AdmiralKird wrote:....ugh.....San Juan? Working hard to overcome his own physical disabilities as a youth? Taking on the Monopolistic Trusts that had overtaken the major U.S. Industries? Panama Canal? Great White Fleet? Environmental Protection during an Industrial Revolution?GatewaySnayke wrote:What in the name of Albert Pujols was McCain citing Teddy Roosevelt as a hero for?! Does he know ANYTHING about Roosevelt??
Charlie: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Charlie: What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview.
Charlie: No, No, the Bush Doctrine. He enunciated it in September 2002, before the Iraq War.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership--and that's the beauty of American elections and democracy--with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better.
Charlie: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to preemptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.
Clinton's, it is the voice of mother in law nightmare.planet pujolsian wrote:Whose accent is more grating to you, Palin's or Clinton's?
It exposed a flaw in her foreign policy background given her lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine.GatewaySnayke wrote:Yeah, and correct me if I'm wrong, but expanding the power of the federal government to regulate business, bust up the trusts, stand in favor of labor unions and protect the environment are all things Republicans are against.AdmiralKird wrote:....ugh.....San Juan? Working hard to overcome his own physical disabilities as a youth? Taking on the Monopolistic Trusts that had overtaken the major U.S. Industries? Panama Canal? Great White Fleet? Environmental Protection during an Industrial Revolution?GatewaySnayke wrote:What in the name of Albert Pujols was McCain citing Teddy Roosevelt as a hero for?! Does he know ANYTHING about Roosevelt??
Teddy's hawkness is the only thing I can see McCain having in common. I'm not talking about their personal problems, because I assumed that he was talking about Teddy being a hero with regards to policy.
Unrelated, this was posted from tonight's Palin interview:
Charlie: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Charlie: What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview.
Charlie: No, No, the Bush Doctrine. He enunciated it in September 2002, before the Iraq War.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership--and that's the beauty of American elections and democracy--with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better.
Charlie: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to preemptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.
In excerpts supplied by the network, Palin said she favored admitting former Soviet republics Ukraine and Georgia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, even though Russia opposes such action. If a country was invaded by Russia, she said, that could mean war, but as a last resort.
"Under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?" Gibson asked in the excerpts.
"Perhaps so," Palin replied. "I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."
"And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States, to go to war, if Russia were to invade?" Gibson pressed.
Palin replied that the United States needs to be vigilant, but she argued that steps such as economic sanctions should be considered first.
"It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a cold war, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us," she said.
We'll see how the media gives off the perception, whether she gives the statement that come from someone with an overly quick trigger towards or whether or not war is a further down the road option. I had no problem with what Palin said in regards to this.ghostrunner wrote:A bit more context on that Russia comment. Gibson sort of leads her into it.
In excerpts supplied by the network, Palin said she favored admitting former Soviet republics Ukraine and Georgia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, even though Russia opposes such action. If a country was invaded by Russia, she said, that could mean war, but as a last resort.
"Under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?" Gibson asked in the excerpts.
"Perhaps so," Palin replied. "I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."
"And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States, to go to war, if Russia were to invade?" Gibson pressed.
Palin replied that the United States needs to be vigilant, but she argued that steps such as economic sanctions should be considered first.
"It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a cold war, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us," she said.