| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2008 01:00:51 PM · #376 |
Where was this part of the interview? Was it on 20/20 or something? I didn't see this portion during the national news.
Perhaps I'm seeing what I want, but I found it quite interesting that when asked if she hesitated about running the very first things she said was "help the ticket" not "help the country". I'm guessing that's the way she was approached which mainly annoys me because Rove was bashing the dems because he was sure they were going to make a "purely political" VP choice.
GIBSON: When McCain asked you to take the spot on the ticket, for a moment, did you think no?
PALIN: I did not. I thought yes, right off the bat. When he offered me the position, as his running mate, the first thing I said to him was, if you really think that I can help the ticket, if you really think that I can help this country, absolutely, I want to do this with you.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 13:04:18. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:03:18 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks for catching that citymars. Dang you spaz! Get your Palin lovin' quotes right! |
I just quoted metatate, he screwed it up first, above me. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:08:37 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where was this part of the interview? Was it on 20/20 or something? I didn't see this portion during the national news.
Perhaps I'm seeing what I want, but I found it quite interesting that when asked if she hesitated about running the very first things she said was "help the ticket" not "help the country". I'm guessing that's the way she was approached which mainly annoys me because Rove was bashing the dems because he was sure they were going to make a "purely political" VP choice.
GIBSON: When McCain asked you to take the spot on the ticket, for a moment, did you think no?
PALIN: I did not. I thought yes, right off the bat. When he offered me the position, as his running mate, the first thing I said to him was, if you really think that I can help the ticket, if you really think that I can help this country, absolutely, I want to do this with you. |
Maybe a question of degrees...from less important to more important. Or perhaps not... |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:14:57 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I don't see any back peddling. Just clarifying the difference between man being SOMEWHAT at fault and man being TOTALLY or even PREDOMINATELY at fault. |
That's quite a clarification.
Interviewer:"What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?"
Palin: A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:22:07 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RonB:
Quite simply, Palin does not dispute the fact that human activity may have SOME effect on climate change, but she will not go so far as to agree that human activity is the PREDOMINANT causative factor in climate change.
ABC, and others, attempting to extrapolate her statement that she is not one who would attribute [ all of ] it ( climate change ) to being [ predominately ] man-made, into meaning that she is not one who would attribute ANY PART OF IT to being influenced by man.
It's no wonder that she might seem a bit defensive - since they are making false accusations, still. |
... would you be so kind as to provide a link to where exactly it was that she used words such s "some" and "predominant"... I seem to have lost my copy. :O)
Ray |
Palin: "That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now."
The "predominant" was my inference from her statement:
"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."
"Predominately" or "only" man-made are the only logical inferences, given the lack of any qualifiers.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 13:28:26. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:24:19 PM · #381 |
I've missed most of this thread, and I have no opinion yet, regarding who I like for P or VP, but I wanted to chime to say:
This is the type of thing that makes me hate news reporters. Not every scientist in the world agrees about the causes of global warming. It's perfectly acceptable to say I'm not convinced it's due to man and still have a desire to control pollution. She left the door open to be wrong because she herself isn't a scientist - there's no flip flop, no debate, no issue - but the news reporter is trying to create drama where no drama exists.
ok ... carry on |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:29:31 PM · #382 |
What's even more disconcerting is her belief that Iraq is some sort of Holy War.
Originally posted by Sarah Palin, June '08:
"Our national leaders are sending them (The U.S. Military) out on a task that is from God,"
"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
|
It sounds like a declaration of jihad.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:32:12 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by hopper:
It's perfectly acceptable to say I'm not convinced it's due to man and still have a desire to control pollution. |
Only to the extent that it's acceptable to say I'm not convinced smoking causes fatal diseases, but still have a desire to curb smoking. If one doesn't cause the other, then why bother controlling it? |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:55:27 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What's even more disconcerting is her belief that Iraq is some sort of Holy War.
Originally posted by Sarah Palin, June '08:
"Our national leaders are sending them (The U.S. Military) out on a task that is from God,"
"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
|
It sounds like a declaration of jihad. |
This is one point I think Palin should be given the benefit of the doubt on. If you look at the full text of what she said, it does sound like she was doing what she claimed in the interview, paraphrasing Lincoln when he said, "let us not pray that God is on our side, let us pray that we are on God's side" (that's probably a paraphrase in itself)... |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:58:47 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What's even more disconcerting is her belief that Iraq is some sort of Holy War.
Originally posted by Sarah Palin, June '08:
"Our national leaders are sending them (The U.S. Military) out on a task that is from God,"
"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
|
It sounds like a declaration of jihad. |
Spazmo99 - did you just wake up? This has been exonerated already and you are guilty of using words out of context - as was the original "teaser" from the AP. The fuller transcript was posted earlier -
edit to add: or maybe I just read it elsewhere and forgot where it was - now where are my glasses......? Here it is
"Sarah Palin believes God told her to go to war with Iraq!"
There has been some hard-core journalistic malpractice on this one. The Associated Press ran this headline about a speech she gave at her church: "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'"
In the story, they omit the first part of the sentence they're quoting along with the entire previous sentence for good measure.
Here are her actual words: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Palin is clearly praying that we're doing the right thing in Iraq, something sensible for an introspective woman of faith concerned about the lives of our troops to do. She's not saying that she just received a text message from heaven's BlackBerry ordering her to launch missiles. Sorry to disappoint you.
And for those of you who think politicians asking God for guidance is offensive, might I remind you of this famous politician's prayer:
"Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will." --Barack Obama
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 14:26:46. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:58:58 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hopper:
It's perfectly acceptable to say I'm not convinced it's due to man and still have a desire to control pollution. |
Only to the extent that it's acceptable to say I'm not convinced smoking causes fatal diseases, but still have a desire to curb smoking. If one doesn't cause the other, then why bother controlling it? |
A better analogy might be
"I'm not convinced that eating causes obesity, but still have a desire to implement progrms that promote the importance of a proper diet and control what foods are made available in government financed schools. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 02:04:36 PM · #387 |
I think global warming is sometimes in part a green herring too (get it?). Since there is a group of non-believers, and they have cast a shadow of doubt, I think it has the effect of making environmental concerns seem like a partisan or arguable issue - which they are not IMO.
Even IF global warming is a hoax that hundreds of scientists with millions in research somehow pulled off ⦠it doesn't eliminate the fact that that there are huge industries polluting the air that eventually it gets into the water and into our bodies (coal fired power plants for example).
So the need to clean it up is still there, even if carbon isn't an issue .. not to suggest that there is anywhere near th body of research in this direction, but just to make the point.
But then again, maybe we shouldn't clean up out air and water.
If the water were clean, we wouldn't need to spend money on bottles of it, right?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hopper:
It's perfectly acceptable to say I'm not convinced it's due to man and still have a desire to control pollution. |
Only to the extent that it's acceptable to say I'm not convinced smoking causes fatal diseases, but still have a desire to curb smoking. If one doesn't cause the other, then why bother controlling it? |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 02:15:38 PM · #388 |
Let's not get this thread stuck on a global warming argument. If you want to argue that, go resurrect the rant thread by that title...
Our friend in all this crap should be factcheck.org. Thank God for them. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 02:23:54 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What's even more disconcerting is her belief that Iraq is some sort of Holy War.
Originally posted by Sarah Palin, June '08:
"Our national leaders are sending them (The U.S. Military) out on a task that is from God,"
"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
|
It sounds like a declaration of jihad. |
This is one point I think Palin should be given the benefit of the doubt on. If you look at the full text of what she said, it does sound like she was doing what she claimed in the interview, paraphrasing Lincoln when he said, "let us not pray that God is on our side, let us pray that we are on God's side" (that's probably a paraphrase in itself)... |
I read the text. I even watched the video. I still say it sounds like a declaration of jihad, calling the war in Iraq a "task from God."
Why does everything ridiculous thing she says need 3 times as much effort to explain away as it took to say it? Everytime she makes a speech or meets with a world leader, will every phrase need to be "justified" or "put in context" to avoid insulting everyone. She's already worse than GW Bush with his reckless "cowboy diplomacy". Maybe she should take those heels off before sticking her foot in her mouth.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 14:25:18. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 02:40:53 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why does everything ridiculous thing she says need 3 times as much effort to explain away as it took to say it? |
Because it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:04:22 PM · #391 |
Currently running on the radio;
âIn three short years in the Senate, Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarksâ¦thatâs over a million dollars for each day heâs been in Washington, D.C.â |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:04:48 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Because it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. |
I have to admit, that made me laugh! Though if were going to dig up the past, there are a few smellier corpses (like the criminal actions of the Supreme Court in 2000) we can begin with. :-) |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:10:46 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Currently running on the radio;
âIn three short years in the Senate, Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarksâ¦thatâs over a million dollars for each day heâs been in Washington, D.C.â |
Palin herself admitted back in July that "both" presidential candidates would pursue earmark reform in office.
Palin requested more than $450 million in federal earmarks during her two years as governor of Alaska -- more per person than any other state. (Not to mention being for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.) And Palin wasn't new to the practice. Previously, as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Palin employed Washington lobbyist Steven Silver to bring home $27 million in bacon--about $3,375 per person. The town had never received earmarks before Palin's tenure.
At the end of the day, earmarks represent just $16 billion of the $2.9 trillion federal budget for 2008. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:22:04 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why does everything ridiculous thing she says need 3 times as much effort to explain away as it took to say it? |
Because it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. |
It's the third person singular present tense form of be. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:25:06 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by citymars:
At the end of the day, earmarks represent just $16 billion of the $2.9 trillion federal budget for 2008. |
Which is about 0.6%. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:32:05 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Currently running on the radio;
âIn three short years in the Senate, Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarksâ¦thatâs over a million dollars for each day heâs been in Washington, D.C.â |
Palin herself admitted back in July that "both" presidential candidates would pursue earmark reform in office. |
Yet McCain has a 100% refusal rating while his opponent can't make that claim at a million dollars per day. Kind of at least shows some difference on attitude between the 2 candidates.
Obama is big on reminding voters that McCain voted in support of Bush policies 90% of the time, something McCain said of himself during the primaries in an attempt to garner those on the right while still demonstrating his willingness to break ranks. Obama on the other hand - voted 97% with the democrats and Pelosi. Doesn't sound like much evidence to think he will break ranks from the liberal record he has extablished and certainly disengenious of him to paint McCain as a go along kind of politician. I seem to remember a pot and kettle discussion. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:39:26 PM · #397 |
Ok so enlighten me since you basically called me a liar. I say you will find it hard since you can go look up every document reference that I stated and see no grand illusion being played. I think you just don't know or are just ignorant of the matter and don't want to check it out. Is it easier to just sit and keep repeating your statement that I'm basically making this up instead of proving it is all no factually correct? I'm not attacking you. I'm asking you to show some prove.. Is it me or is this how all your arguements end up. You start loosing you start calling them names. Anyone else see this trend with Spazmo99? If you like I will scan my BA degree to show you I do have a BA in Political Science. Care to show me your qualifications on the matter?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You showed your skewed interpretation of history, not proof. Do you really need lectures on Lincoln and Kennedy? Did you really study Poli Sci like you claimed? If so, then you should know you're just blowing smoke.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well I showed you my proof where's yours. And enough with your childish attacks on individuals. It just goes to prove once again you have nothing left to debate so you start your ridiculing and personal attacks. So how about prove me wrong with facts not just hot air.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You're just plain wrong on so many levels, but I will concede that you're creative with history and spelling.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well lets look at the facts. The Emancipation proclamation only free slaves in states not under the control of Licoln at the time or if you wish the confederacy. The 13th amendment was ratified December 6, 1865. Lincoln died 7:22 A.M. on the morning of April 15, 1865. So he died before all slaves were free in the U.S. Second no where in the laws of this Nation has it ever said a state could not suceed from the union. Third if you have studied politics you would know that the 1964 Kennedy Nixon debate was the turning point in American politics. It was the first time a presidential debate was broadcast over Television. People before had to listen to the debate. I always listen to debated so your not persuaded by manurisism or crowd jerring. Fourth The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (added during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism. Any sitting president could have envoked this. The love of Kennedy is purely Camelot. In other words make believe.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by coronamv:
I do not feel you can judge a president on just a few actions they made. Lincoln and Kennedy in my studies of history prove to be more of a failure than a success. They call Lincoln the great emancipator but he only free the slaves in the Southern Confederacy. Second point he had no athority under the laws of this nation to wage a war on any state that suceeded from the union. Kennedy technically lost the 1964 debate to Nixon but was young and handsome compaired to Nixon the Old washington Crony with the five oclock shadow 8 am in the morning.He basically won on looks. Second all sitting presidents would have followed the Monroe Doctrine that says we are the only Super power in the western Hemisphere. Beyond that both were assasinated and we can only imagine what could,would but did not be.
|
I've heard some revisionist history in my time, but THAT is amazing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:39:53 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Currently running on the radio;
âIn three short years in the Senate, Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarksâ¦thatâs over a million dollars for each day heâs been in Washington, D.C.â |
Palin herself admitted back in July that "both" presidential candidates would pursue earmark reform in office. |
Yet McCain has a 100% refusal rating while his opponent can't make that claim at a million dollars per day. Kind of at least shows some difference on attitude between the 2 candidates.
Obama is big on reminding voters that McCain voted in support of Bush policies 90% of the time, something McCain said of himself during the primaries in an attempt to garner those on the right while still demonstrating his willingness to break ranks. Obama on the other hand - voted 97% with the democrats and Pelosi. Doesn't sound like much evidence to think he will break ranks from the liberal record he has extablished and certainly disengenious of him to paint McCain as a go along kind of politician. I seem to remember a pot and kettle discussion. |
McCain's record is not 100% against earmarks. He's even come up with his own. In 2006 McCain, in conjunction with Jon Kyl, another AZ Senator, funneled $10 million to the University of AZ for an academic center named after William Rhenquist. Even McCain's buddies at the National Taxpayer's Union questioned why he was making taxpayers foot the bill.
Obama is not portraying himself as a "maverick" apart from his party. McCain is. Nothing disengenuous there.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 15:47:24. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:42:26 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Currently running on the radio;
âIn three short years in the Senate, Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarksâ¦thatâs over a million dollars for each day heâs been in Washington, D.C.â |
Palin herself admitted back in July that "both" presidential candidates would pursue earmark reform in office. |
Yet McCain has a 100% refusal rating while his opponent can't make that claim at a million dollars per day. Kind of at least shows some difference on attitude between the 2 candidates.
Obama is big on reminding voters that McCain voted in support of Bush policies 90% of the time, something McCain said of himself during the primaries in an attempt to garner those on the right while still demonstrating his willingness to break ranks. Obama on the other hand - voted 97% with the democrats and Pelosi. Doesn't sound like much evidence to think he will break ranks from the liberal record he has extablished and certainly disengenious of him to paint McCain as a go along kind of politician. I seem to remember a pot and kettle discussion. |
Yeah a few of these pots have broken handles though. I guess that happens when you become indocrinated and dependant on big government to provide you with the means to live. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:46:50 PM · #400 |
So you are saying that he is not running partially on the fact that he is the first Black man to win the nomination of any party for the presidency? Would that alone make him a maverick? See personally speaking I could care less about a persons color. I think Collin Powell Would have made a better cadidate for the republican nomination than McCain. This being based on I identify with his ideology more than McCain,but since my choices are McCain or Obama I will choice McCain. Based on I beleive in the second amendment, I do not believe in Universal healthcare, or welfare, and I believe in a strong military. That is something the Democratic Party has failed at over the last 4 decades in a whole.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Currently running on the radio;
âIn three short years in the Senate, Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarksâ¦thatâs over a million dollars for each day heâs been in Washington, D.C.â |
Palin herself admitted back in July that "both" presidential candidates would pursue earmark reform in office. |
Yet McCain has a 100% refusal rating while his opponent can't make that claim at a million dollars per day. Kind of at least shows some difference on attitude between the 2 candidates.
Obama is big on reminding voters that McCain voted in support of Bush policies 90% of the time, something McCain said of himself during the primaries in an attempt to garner those on the right while still demonstrating his willingness to break ranks. Obama on the other hand - voted 97% with the democrats and Pelosi. Doesn't sound like much evidence to think he will break ranks from the liberal record he has extablished and certainly disengenious of him to paint McCain as a go along kind of politician. I seem to remember a pot and kettle discussion. |
Obama is not portraying himself as a "maverick" apart from his party. McCain is. Nothing disengenuous there. |
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 15:53:11. |
|
