Reply With Quote
And she still knows more than Obama.
neither can, chuck
And she still knows more than Obama.
Well, maybe we should have someone besides Palin running for president. Oh wait, we do...
There are eight points to the Bush Doctrine, it was more than fair of her to ask him to clarify. That you libs are hanging your hat on her asking for a ridiculously vague question to be clarified says a lot.
I just don't see it. I guess it is just one of those things. I do not find her engaging or anything. Her whole demeanor turns me off completely.
Please, tell me that people are not really that clueless to think that she was trying to clarify which aspect of the Bush doctrine he meant! She had absolutley no idea and you could see it plain as day on her face. Then, basically to define the word "doctrine." It truly looked like a beauty pageant answer.What is the Bush doctrine? It is his view on the world.
Also, when she has no idea what to say she says- "Islamic extremists" a lot.
Last edited by ploto; 09-12-2008 at 11:05 AM.
This is just blind partisanship. You might not like Obama's stances on the issues, but he's well-informed. I think he at least knows what the Bush Doctrine is.
She's got "it", and there's not a damn thing ya'll can do about it.
But he has no opinion of when life begins.
Well informed, but indecisive.
Great.
Obama is coming off as weak and indecisive in just about every interview gives right now...and to not see it is pure partisanship.
Just wait till people start seeing through the zealot smear.
Actually, I thought he did alright vs. O'Reilly.
But that one was easy; he could be as tough as he wanted since O'Reilly's style is so aggressive.
Mccain knows it's only good for public opinion and he explained that. No such disclaimers from obama.
she knows how to get knocked up
she has 5 kids
So now the nuance matters? I thought Obama's problem was that he wasted too much time on nuance and explanations, while McCain was more direct. But on this issue, even though McCain said the same thing as Obama, it's the disclaimer that apparently matters.
She's all about values. Letting her teenage daughter run wild and have unprotected sex leading to pregnancy.
"It" is not at the head of the ticket. And "it" is something that is not very appealing outside of the religious knuckledraggers.
I thought it was such a metaphysical question that you cannot possibly answer it simply.
I know McCain gave his answer of "at conception" but what is it at conception that creates a "life" in a morally relevant sense? Is it the potential for person-hood that makes the combination if the egg and sperm morally relevant?
It's an issue that I really need to learn more about.
I always took Obama's answer to that abortion ? as not wanting to rub his position in the face of pro-life voters, as in "It's arrogant for me to presume to know ultimately what God thinks on this issue," because that's what I thought he was referring to with his 'above my pay grade' remark.
The WRONG answer is "It's above my pay grade".
I begins at conception; it won't become a donkey or an oak tree; the fetus will, every time, become a human being.
Paglia is the only liberal I've heard that is honest about this. She is Pro-Choice and readily concedes that the fetus is human life. Her position is, simply, that a woman can do with her body what she wants, including remove a parasitic life form. Intellectually, brutally, honest.
it was the understanding that Russia has Veto power. That was something Obama apparently forgot, and then proceeded to backtrack.
To me that is a bigger mistake than knowing exactly what the ambiguous "Bush Doctrine" is. In fact, I never thought preemptive strikes were something new, so why would Bush be credited with such a doctrine?
Her answer of "...if the intelligence is strong enough to determine attack is eminent then a preemptive strike is justified" makes sense to me. however, I'm not that confident in our intelligence agencies anymore.
Last edited by 2centsworth; 09-12-2008 at 12:28 PM.
No, I agree it was a bad answer. I still don't know that he could have or should have provided a one phrase response, but what he did say seemed dismissive of the issue.
Props.
Fair enough
I hope you're kidding, but I'm sure you're not.
Teenagers will do what teenagers will do regardless how they were raised.
Have you never done something you're parents told you not to do?
I was raised in a Baptist home, taught right from wrong in all aspects...but guess what? I still went out and did some things I KNEW my parents wouldn't approve of...they were just flat out wrong.
That wasn't my parents' fault. They raised me the way they should. At some point, we all have to be responsible for our actions.
Clearly, she was old enough to know what was expected of her, but she chose another path.
Enough with blaming Palin for her daughter's choices. It's ridiculous.
Fascist.
Her mother clearly did not do a good enough job of teaching her daughter about abstinence and safe sex, which is why she is pregnant at such a young age. It was poor parenting.
That's a pretty good argument to stop throwing our tax dollars away on useless abstinence education.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions