SARAH PALIN - My kind of gal!

[CoachChris]

Good points Steve! I think we should turn the whole place to glass actually!light bulb

 

[elkguys]

rockymnt
I so agree on how you stated the facts!! sadamm and his bros were the wmd was it not chemical ali that help kill the kurds as I have said in the past I have seen the mass graves and could only think that thank god it didnt happen on us soil!! has for maccain he spent three years a pow but could have cut and run on his team,would obama do that I think not hell he cannt even put his hand over his heart when addressing the flag!! the dems over the years have cut back our arm forces to the lowest of all time look at how many bases we have closed the west coast is wide open. wake up america before we are not america!!

 

[Pdvdh]

I would really like to talk a little more about the Iraq war. All this crap about the lies, and war for oil, and what not, is just that. Someone please tell me what Middle East country was going to let us run cart-blanc looking for Bin Laddin. I think we can all agree that the attacks on 9-11 were from the Middle East. I think we can all agree that the attacks were also carried out by Muslims. I think we can all agree that they (the Middle East Muslim terrorists) said that they were going to do it again. It seems to me that they called for our surrender. The only country in the Middle East that could give us access to do something about the prior statements was Iraq. No one could deny that they had thumbed their noses at the UN. They were also calling for the destruction of the United States. No one has ever been able to deny that there was wmd's prior to the start of the war. Fact are facts, they were used previously. I can't see how anyone can be so short sighted as to not see the connection to Iraq in all of this. If we had run willy nilly through the Middle East, hunting down Bin Laddin, we would have gotten pounded by enemies we didn't know we had. Our only chance of changing the Middle East was to create a free Iraq, and hope that freedom is contagious.
Steve

I can't agree with any of the portions of your post that remain quoted above. We already had access in Afganistan to hunt down Bin Laden and his top command. That's who attacked us. Iraq didn't attack us. Saddam didn't attack us.

I think it's overly arrogant, and so does the rest of the world, to presume that the US has any right to attack and occupy a foreign country for the purpose of spreading American-style freedom. How is that any different than what the communist USSR was doing prior to and during the cold war? Why didn't they have that right, if you believe we have it.

We had the support of the world to go after the Bin Laden organization. We lost the support of the world when we lied to justify our invasion of Iraq.

How many more countries should we attack and occupy to spread freedom. Would you go to Iran next? How about North Korea? USSR? China? How about the African countries. Heard of Darfur? It's not the US duty or right to use force to overthrow foreign powers that we have some differences with. Democracy should be tolerant, not arrogant. And Bush's arrogance has led us to where we are today. We've spent ourselves militarily and financially with very little to show for it. Why should any other country come to our assistance when we act and implement unilaterally as Imperialist of the planet.

Obama's after-the-fact quarterbacking is exactly correct on the war against terrorism. We should have concentrated on Bin Laden until he was dead or captured, and obliterated his organization as a first priority. We had the support of the world on that mission and we blew it. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. What a screw-up. Rumsfeld should have been canned after the first 12 months of failed strategy. It will be a long, long time before the rest of the world gives us any benefit of the doubt when we next choose to pick a fight. And have you noticed. We can't go it alone. One itsy bitsy country like Iraq and we've spent ourselves. Who's taking advantage of that now? Iran.

Call me "short-sighted" and proud of it.

 

[Nomosendero]

Obama will go after Bin Laden like I will be flying the space shuttle, not going to happen. He will be busy bringing us non-Muslim gun owners to "justice" to bother with his buddies. And I am not real sure what Sara's performance in the debate has to do with Donald Rumsfeld?

 

[Pdvdh]

Obama might go after Bin Laden, as President. McCain won't be going after Bin Laden because he'll still be a Senator. Sara won't be going after Bin Laden, because she can't name a Supreme Court Justice or identify a single newspaper that she reads. She wouldn't know who Bin Laden was if she bumped into him face to face. Besides that, Sara will be back in Alaska keeping an eye on Russia. So... not going to happen under Republican leadership anytime in the next 4 years.

The Republican Administration has floundered at the job for the past 7 years in the Obama hunt and 6 out of 7 years in Iraq. They had Obama trapped in the Torra Borra hills of Afghanistan and made the political decision to let him walk away across the border into Pakistan. Think of it in these terms. If Obama fails to get Bin Laden after four years in office, he'd be more successful than the Bush team. They've had 7 years. It's hard to draw a comparison to the Bush team on any issue of significance and walk away the loser. That's why Bush has got the lowest rating of any President since ratings have ever been polled. And that's the single biggest reason why McCain will not be our next President, and Sarah will not be Vice President.

Hey, I'm not sure what Sara's performance has to do with Donald Duck either. I'm not sure why you're looking for a connection there. Furthermore, I'm not sure what a non-Muslim gun owner's got to do with Sara's performance either.

Doesn't the jibberish just make if much more difficult to communicate?

 

[7mmSendaro]

Say what you want about McCain or Palin. What I can tell as a resident of Obama's home state, HE WILL BE COMING AFTER YOUR GUNS!

McCain is certainly not my first choice but he is a lot better than the alternative. Obama is simply an extension of the Chicago Dailey political machine.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I can't agree with any of the portions of your post that remain quoted above. We already had access in Afganistan to hunt down Bin Laden and his top command. That's who attacked us. Iraq didn't attack us. Saddam didn't attack us.

I think it's overly arrogant, and so does the rest of the world, to presume that the US has any right to attack and occupy a foreign country for the purpose of spreading American-style freedom. How is that any different than what the communist USSR was doing prior to and during the cold war? Why didn't they have that right, if you believe we have it.

We had the support of the world to go after the Bin Laden organization. We lost the support of the world when we lied to justify our invasion of Iraq.

How many more countries should we attack and occupy to spread freedom. Would you go to Iran next? How about North Korea? USSR? China? How about the African countries. Heard of Darfur? It's not the US duty or right to use force to overthrow foreign powers that we have some differences with. Democracy should be tolerant, not arrogant. And Bush's arrogance has led us to where we are today. We've spent ourselves militarily and financially with very little to show for it. Why should any other country come to our assistance when we act and implement unilaterally as Imperialist of the planet.

Obama's after-the-fact quarterbacking is exactly correct on the war against terrorism. We should have concentrated on Bin Laden until he was dead or captured, and obliterated his organization as a first priority. We had the support of the world on that mission and we blew it. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. What a screw-up. Rumsfeld should have been canned after the first 12 months of failed strategy. It will be a long, long time before the rest of the world gives us any benefit of the doubt when we next choose to pick a fight. And have you noticed. We can't go it alone. One itsy bitsy country like Iraq and we've spent ourselves. Who's taking advantage of that now? Iran.

Call me "short-sighted" and proud of it.

I don't know if it is arrogance or ignorance to put the US on the same moral plane as the USSSR. The US has never taken anything from a country that it has gone to war with other than a piece of ground to bury her dead on. The rest of the word thinks what it has always thought, they love us when we are bailing their butts out of sure defeat from fascists or communists. If we are protecting our own self interest we are hated. It has always been the same. Personally I don't know what the rest of the world thinks has to do w/ the security of our country.


To say that we have no right to spread freedom is like saying we have no right to help another country grow more food. You think we should be tolerant of other countries right to slavery. As if the people of that country prefer to live that way. I guess as long as you are free then the rest of the world can live under oppressive rule, as long as they do it over there and not too close to you.

I assume that in your mind the Taliban is in great shape. Sitting in their caves being thankful that we got sidetracked in Iraq. Probably out playing golf trying to decide what to have for dinner at the country club. What makes you think that Bin Ladin is still alive? Perhaps you have spoken to him, many of your points sound just like his.

You obviously to not believe in good guys and bad guys. They only have a difference in opinion. Everything is of moral equivalence to you. Am I wrong?

If our country does not stand up for it self, what country would do it for us? If our country does not stand in the way of world fascism, then what country would? China? Maybe France? I know, Venezuela? Better yet maybe we should sit back for a while and let Canada do the heavy lifting. After all, with their socialized medicine, they should be in great physical shape. Perhaps the EU can do it? Oh, that's right, we are deploying a missile defense system in order to protect them.

Like it or not, pal, we are it. If we do not keep our head in the game, we will get taken out by some other country that wants what we have. There is a reason we have not had war on our soil, and I for one hope we never loose sight of that.

I am truly sorry that you and others like you are so bitter and full of contempt for the country that gives you the right and freedom to do what you are doing right now. It's like the dog that bites the hand that feeds him.

Steve

 

[Nomosendero]

It is a poorly thought-out comment to say we "let" Bin Laden cross into Pakistan. One has to consider the terrain & how many miles the 2 countries border. Now if someone can verify that we knew exactly where Bin Laden was & we "let" him walk the same way that Klinton
let him walk on 2 different occassions (a matter of record) that would be different. And to say that we can't do anything in Pak. because we are still in Iraq is silly, we fought a World
War of much larger scale on 2 fronts several thousand miles apart, yea right. And we already know that Iraq will be slowly scaled back & more resources & people are already
headed to Af. & this Obama thug acts like they are now doing his plan, typical Liberal Liar.

Nay, he is not interested in Bin Laden near as much as he feels a "need" to disarm the US
Citizen. It will be time to choose sides then & it won't be pretty. I think it will be important to remember who put us in that spot.

 

[Hunter]

...

Call me "short-sighted" and proud of it.

I can see now the reasoning behind your obsession with the so called "troopergate" issue. My assertion was that it was a non-issue and any clear thinking person would credit Sarah for her actions rather than try to discredit her for them. Relative to all your other comments in this thread it is obvious it is just another cheap, china made wrench in your toolbox of political digs.

One of the reasons I am a proud Alaskan is that we are one of the most conservative, frontier style old American, Teddy Roosevelt Republicanistic states of the union. But, obviously not all of us.

 

[Pdvdh]

Personally I don't know what the rest of the world thinks has to do w/ the security of our country.


To say that we have no right to spread freedom is like saying we have no right to help another country grow more food. You think we should be tolerant of other countries right to slavery. As if the people of that country prefer to live that way. I guess as long as you are free then the rest of the world can live under oppressive rule, as long as they do it over there and not too close to you.

I assume that in your mind the Taliban is in great shape. Sitting in their caves being thankful that we got sidetracked in Iraq. Probably out playing golf trying to decide what to have for dinner at the country club. What makes you think that Bin Ladin is still alive? Perhaps you have spoken to him, many of your points sound just like his.

You obviously to not believe in good guys and bad guys. They only have a difference in opinion. Everything is of moral equivalence to you. Am I wrong?

If our country does not stand up for it self, what country would do it for us? If our country does not stand in the way of world fascism, then what country would? China? Maybe France? I know, Venezuela? Better yet maybe we should sit back for a while and let Canada do the heavy lifting. After all, with their socialized medicine, they should be in great physical shape. Perhaps the EU can do it? Oh, that's right, we are deploying a missile defense system in order to protect them.

Like it or not, pal, we are it. If we do not keep our head in the game, we will get taken out by some other country that wants what we have. There is a reason we have not had war on our soil, and I for one hope we never loose sight of that.

I am truly sorry that you and others like you are so bitter and full of contempt for the country that gives you the right and freedom to do what you are doing right now. It's like the dog that bites the hand that feeds him.

Steve

What the rest of the world thinks has everything to do with our security. Go drop a bomb in each of the other countries of the world and see how secure we are then.

You talk as God. You get to decide who's living and ruling properly and which countries aren't. And then once you decide you evidently believe it's either your right, or God directed duty to go force your system of rule on everyone who see's it differently than you. Not a lot of difference there compared to what the Taliban were doing. After all, if God tells you you're right, who can disagree?

Never said there was anything wrong with spreading freedom. I'm saying it's both short-sighted and arrogant to spread freedom by attacking every country you find fault with, and then occupying that country in the effort to set up a government that you find to your fancy.

What makes you think Bin Laden's dead? You don't think if he was dead the Bush administration wouldn't tell us? That's one of their bigger failures. They could make that issue disappear by telling us he was dead. You don't think we know that the Taliban is regaining strength in the Pakistan border area? I can't know that he's alive. Any more than I could have known that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction when the Bush administration told us they did. We're pretty vulnerable to the word of our government leaders in that way - aren't we? I've laid out a couple arguments to support Bin Laden is alive. Where's your evidence he's dead? Why didn't John McCain use your argument during the 1st debate with Obama? It's a losing argument. Was then. Is now.

Yes, you are wrong. You're wrong to presume you are God's gift to the world in determining morally right from morally wrong for the rest of the less blessed peoples of the world in their home countries, whereever they might be, and then arguing that our government is correct to attack other countries to spread freedom as you conceptualize it.

Never said there was anything wrong with our country standing up for itself. Never said we shouldn't maintain the strongest military in the world. After all, if any other country became stronger or more capable militarily than us, and they believed they had the right to come convert us over to their system of beliefs and government because they knew better for us than we knew for ourselves, then we would certainly need to fight to defend against that attack. Funny how you talk so much like I envision one of those attacking countries might when they justified their attack on our country.

Don't be sorry for me because I disagree with you on so many fundamental areas of political rule. Never said I had contempt for our country. I have some contempt for the current administrations' track record. So do a lot of others in the country. Sadly, that's why you'll end up with a Democratic President and Vice President following this election. The majority believe our country couldn't possibly be any worse off with the Democrats than taking a chance on failed Republican stategies for another 4 years. The Bush administration asked for it, they got it, they blew it, and now the Republican party will be years trying to salvage their reputation.

 

[Pdvdh]

I can see now the reasoning behind your obsession with the so called "troopergate" issue. My assertion was that it was a non-issue and any clear thinking person would credit Sarah for her actions rather than try to discredit her for them. Relative to all your other comments in this thread it is obvious it is just another cheap, china made wrench in your toolbox of political digs.

One of the reasons I am a proud Alaskan is that we are one of the most conservative, frontier style old American, Teddy Roosevelt Republicanistic states of the union. But, obviously not all of us.

You must hate it when more people disagree with you than agree with you, and as a consequence, your home town hero, Sarah, returns to govern Alaska as a defeated Vice President. You'll just have to settle for Sarah as Governor. That's still a real accomplishment for your hero. Maybe the hero part is why you find it to your liking to ignore her use of elected power to settle non-government, personal family matters. If she's the great executive and adminstrator you believe she is, a person would think she'd be able to manage & resolve family fueds without exercising and abusing the political powers entrusted to her as the elected Governor of the State? And if there was absolutely nothing wrong with what she did, why has she lawyered up?

 

[Pdvdh]

It is a poorly thought-out comment to say we "let" Bin Laden cross into Pakistan. One has to consider the terrain & how many miles the 2 countries border. Now if someone can verify that we knew exactly where Bin Laden was & we "let" him walk the same way that Klinton
let him walk on 2 different occassions (a matter of record) that would be different.

Nomosendero,

I wrote what I wrote because our military had confirmed Bin Laden's presence at the hideaway caves in the Torra Borra mountains of Afghanistan by monitoring his radio communications during the conflict. Rather than using our military troops to take him out, the political decision was made to allow the Afghan troops to do the job. We handed over the lead role for killing Bin Laden to troops with no established track record, of which we had no reason to expect competence, and then Bin Laden snuck out and walked across the border to where it's believed he still resides to this day. As I said, Bin Laden's presence was confirmed by our military intelligence during this several day conflict. The political decision to allow the Afghans to take him out rather than using US troops to do the job is also documented. It's not something I thought out either well or poorly before I typed it. This failure is documented. I suspect the powers that be thought we had the guy dead to right, and that we should let the Afghan troops have the honor. Or that they wanted to minimize US troop casualties. Bottom line - Bin Laden got away and we got what we got.

 

[Hunter]

... I have some contempt for the current administrations' track record. So do a lot of others in the country.

Sadly, that's why you'll end up with a Democratic President and Vice President following this election.

The majority believe our country couldn't possibly be any worse off with the Democrats than taking a chance on failed Republican stategies for another 4 years. The Bush administration asked for it, they got it, they blew it, and now the Republican party will be years trying to salvage their reputation.

Wow, a liberal apologist, foreteller of the future, and mind reader of the masses all in one.

You certainly are multitalented, phorwath!

 

[Pdvdh]

Wow, a liberal apologist, foreteller of the future, and mind reader of the masses all in one.

You certainly are multitalented, phorwath!

Thank you kindly.

Like I said, you must be miserable being in the minority to have to paint anyone with a difference of opinion as a liberal apoligist. Here's your consolation - Sarah will come back home and she'll make you feel much better. Close and cozy to your home-town hero. And think of the additional security you'll enjoy - she'll be keeping an eye on the Russians!

Here's the deal. Come back after the elections and correct me then... if you can...