Another Sarah Palin Thread

If you have something to say, say it.

Still Bush's fault even now while Obama is in command?

If by "excellent political instincts" you mean taking the path of least resistance to establishment support by adopting the neocon republican party line, then I agree.

"Obsessed with tossing about the word 'neocon' and trying to make it stick" = bullshit. You're trying to make it sound like he's disingenuously using it as a meaningless smear word when, in fact, it's accurate and applicable to Palin.

For example, this is Palin on Obama:

Her big criticism of Obama is that he isn't more like Bush!! She thinks that if Obama would simply spend more money on military interventionism (already the biggest part of the federal budget) then all the people who are fed up with his domestic spending projects would be okay with them. This is completely in sync with the neocon War Uber Alles agenda.

You dismiss anyone out of hand who mentions Christian Zionism, which you put in sneer quotes. Why?

Contrary to a disturbingly popular line of reasoning amongst so-called conservatives, fault can be, and most frequently is, shared. Every American bomb that drops in Afghanistan and Iraq is Bush's fault; for those that fall on Obama's watch, at least after his first month or two in office, Obama shares the fault.

CAN be used as neocon buzzwords - but also CAN be legitimate expressions of concern for national defense.

the belief in a strong national presence in the world, even a military one, is NOT exclusive to the neocon wing.

I tend to be more an isolationist because I happen to believe most of those ingrates have no appreciation for what we do for them or can do for them....but i recognize that those words can go beyond the neocon crowd.

Because it is used as a pejorative for against anyone who thinks the Jews have a legitimate right to a secure existence in Israel. It's a slur (by intent) for anyone who doesn't agree to the general idea that those who want to "drive the Jews into the sea" are the ones who are most in the wrong in the Middle Eastern conflict.

It arises from the willfull ignorance or decit of trying to imply that the only people who hold that view are religious wackoloons who need Israel to exist for their prophecies to come true.

I fail to see what Iran or any other Islamic nation says has to do with how Israel treats the non-Jews inside her own borders.

Sure, why not?

Any naughtiness in Media Central is your fault then. ickle:

Good.

Hell, we tried a liberal negro. Look how that panned out. It can't be any worse trying a conservative woman.

Except that we can't survive two disastrous presidencies in a row. Bush was bad enough, but Obama is an unmitigated disaster. I am convinced Palin would be as well. Palin is to the right what Obama is to the left: a pretty face that can talk about ideology, but has no idea, in practice, how to actually run things.

I want a president who has some decent experience and knows how to lead. I am thoroughly tired of novelty presidents. Being black, or being a woman, is not a qualification for office. Being one or the other (or even both) is certainly not a hinderance, either, but should have nothing to do with the choice.

Does it really matter? The country is beyond salvage; it has stage 4 terminal cancer. It's only a matter of time before it implodes.

Legitimate concerns about legitimate verified offenses (as opposed to staged or fictitious events ginned up by Arabs to create bad will for the jews) does not lead one to squeal "You're a Christian Zionist!!!!" at anyone less concerned.

You're right. Neocons aren't the only ones who are fine with invading and occupying the world. But they are the ones who have fooled countless people who are otherwise conservative into thinking it's somehow "conservative" to support massive foreign intervention that doesn't serve our national interest and bankrupts the country.

You're anti-intervention because you don't think all those arabs fully appreciate us invading, shooting, and blowing up their countries?

"Christian zionist" can be used as a pejorative, therefore it has no legitimate use or definition? False. Take Sarah Palin, for example, who is a Christian Zionist. That's not a pejorative, that's an accurate description as further explained by the article linked to in the op. And unlike the false dichotomy you set up, describing her as such doesn't have anything to do with "driving jews into the sea."

You put your finger here squarely on one of the two biggest problems with modern "conservatives" (the ones who are normally called "neocons") IMO. They are much too free with throwing around American military might, whenever they think it furthers our "interests," with little or no regard for the "interests" of the countries with whom we might disagree. I am all for strong national defense. But the term "defense" gets used much too easily for what is really offense, interventionism, and coercion.

I don't know that "Christian zionism" characterizes all that many neocons, but it certainly characterizes an awful lot of conservative Christians in America. Personally, I have serious reservations about it. I am not at all opposed to the existence of the Jewish state, but I do not agree at all with those who think that Christians should favor Jewish expansionism. I have no problem with Jews living in Palestine, but I recognize that other people live there as well, and have as much right to live there as the Jews do. Too many Christians seem to think that the Jewish state has a divine mandate to own the land fully, but that idea cannot be seriously defended, either on the basis of Biblical teaching or on the basis of political realities in the world today.

Those two issues are two major problems (among others) with Sarah Palin, IMO. Two reasons, among others, for which I would not vote for her.

​

And there in is the problem.

Two centuries have proven that there is NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE that indicates in any way whether a person will be a good president.

Which American presidents had the most experience in various positions prior to taking office?

Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan, George H.W. Bush, William Howard Taft, Jimmy Carter...to name just a few.

John F. Kennedy had it right when he said that nothing in life can ever prepare a person for being president.

FWIW, I guess she was on the Tonight Show last night.

Well, when we get those, we sure don't get no fucking hero, we get Machiavellian monsters like Cheny.

Hmm...no thanks.

Think I'd rather have the Joker drive me around in a Toyota.

Jay Leno annoys me almost as much as Obama.

That simply is not true. George H.W. Bush was one of the best presidents we've had. He had lots of experience. Ronald Reagan was governor of a huge state. He, also, was a good president. Clinton was governor of a much smaller state, but was still a decent president. (I didn't like a lot of his policies, but that is an entirely different issue.) Nixon was a crook, but other than that he was one of the best leaders the country has had.

Obama, on the other hand, has shown time and again that he has no idea how to lead. He is a campaigner, period. Ford came to the job entirely unprepared (through no real fault of his own) and, despite being a nice guy, was really not much of a leader.

This "experience makes no difference" excuse simply will not wash. There is no such thing as adequate experience, but that is not at all the same thing as claiming that experience makes no difference. Sure, you can find counter-examples, but counter-examples do not disprove a trend. They only show that there are exceptions, even to trends.

On this, we agree. Cheney is also among those who would never get my vote.

That which is bankrupting our country is almost entirely touchy-feely left wing feel-good spending, not war. If we defunded every military action that took place in another country, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit spending or the national debt.

As for the rest - what "serves our national interest" varies from person to person, which is where the debate arises. kristol and his lot who were gung ho for invading Iraq DID think it served our national interests, even if you didn't.

When I thought it was a credible possibility that Saddam could go nuclear, I took it as a "least bad" option that war was necessary given the potential alternative. I'd venture to say that these conservatives "being convined" that you mention also proceed from a "least bad option" mentality in most cases.

If you expect me to dignify your claim that all we are doing is "blowing up their countries" by taking it as the foundation for my reply, then i can't help you.

It is an obvious, verifiable, and plain fact that we will leave a better infrastructure in Iraq than what we found when we invaded it and this won't be the first time such has taken place. I suspect that most ofthe population is not grateful for that - even though never before in the history of the world has any other nation invested in rebuilding a country they invaded when they were not keeping the territory for themselves.

Furthermore, there are many who do not particularly appreciate being freed from a dictator or are particularly inclined to exert some effort into remaining free (as opposed to negligently allowing another thuggish government to come to power.

Does this mean that I'm proud of the war, or that I think we've never made a huge blunder by going to war? Hell no, that should be obvious.

But the fact remains that no other country spends as much to rebuild as we do, and no other country expends it's energies on behalf of nationals of other nations to the extent we do.

That said, I am isolationist because I see very little evidence that people in MOST other nations have th fortitude to fight as hard for their own freedom as we often fight for it on their behalf, which produces in me a "fuck 'em then" attitude.

"Christian zionist" can be used as a pejorative, therefore it has no legitimate use or definition? False. Take Sarah Palin, for example, who is a Christian Zionist. That's not a pejorative, that's an accurate description as further explained by the article linked to in the op.[/quote]
The article linked in the OP lacks credibility with me, as I've said.

The fact that the term acurately describes a particular point of view, or even that it describes her particular point of view (assuming it does) does not change the fact that in almost every instance when a left-of-center writer or speaker uses it, it carries a pejorative context which puts it on the same level as "fundamentalist", "white supremacist" or whatever.

There is no reason to invoke a "biblical mandate" in terms of geopolitics - that's out of bounds, IMO.

however, the actual literal 19th and 20th century history of the settling and founding of Israel puts the lie to a lot of what is said against the existance of or behavior of the nation that exists today.

that's not to say that the current and former Israli governments have not erred.Like our government it does so all the time. But there errors are greatly exaggerated, IMHO.

Say again?

Fine then. Just leave it at invading, killing, and occupying. That's quite enough.

What would you think if China invaded the US, killed a whole lot of Americans, and overthrew the government to make it ideologically similar to the Chinese worldview. But said, "Don't worry! We're making you more orderly! And we're going to leave you with some nice infrastructure!

Why does the article linked in the OP lack credibility? Oh, yes! because it uses "christian zionist." Circular argument.

I probably should have clarified my meaning there. I meant the article linked to in the article in the op when you click on "christian zionism." Does that article lack credibility with you as well? If so, why?

Well, it's accurate in this case. So even if what you're claiming is true, then what does it matter?

She is also a fucking moron.

Say again?

LOL! You seriously are going to try to get by with that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png



Also, even in that National Defense is 23% of the budget, not ALL Defense spending is a result of being at war.

IIRC, not even half of it.

Meanwhile, almost 40% goes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And that chart is BEFORE Obama's "Stimulus bill" and related spending.

furthermore, another HUGE chunk of mandatory spending is interest on the National debt - which is being accelerated at a breakneck speed in the last 18 months by.....Was it war spending?

Nope. War spending is no more and probably less than it was 2 years ago, yet deficit spending is at an all time high by any measure - why?

For consideration:

That's for 7+ budget years - roughly $100 billion a year on average.

by contrast:

That's all in ONE budget year, and doesn't include TARP or any of the other ancilary bills


Dude - maybe I misread you. I had thought you were a serious guy with legit points to make, but you are either succumbing to some nasty propaganda here, or willfully ignorant.

I'll get to the other stuff in a separate post.

that argument proceeds from the false assumption that all ideaologies and forms of government are morally and ethically equal.

I do not accept the proposition.

no, because it uses it as a prejorative, and for other reasons which demonstrate an unmistakable bias.

it's an opinion piece which derives from a political point of view I have low regard for, thus once I question the basic assumptions I can have little regard for the conclusions.

Nevertheless, there is no moral right to force people of another country to accept a form of government they don't want, period. There is no more justification for "exporting democracy" than for "exporting communism."