1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Palin doesn't know what a Vice President does - What the heck????!!!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by gregdavidson, Sep 18, 2008.

  1. ST12

    ST12 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #21
    McCain and S. Pailin are much below the level of Putin and Medvedev.

    The world politics is more like a chess game than a Texas Holdem poker. Bush played Texas Holdem with Iraq and went all in with AK pre-flop just to find out that even 2-6 off suit can beat him. The game is not over yet in Iraq and the rakes have cost hundreds of billions to the US tax payer.
    In Georgia he raised pre-flop with with the miserable 3-8 off suit hoping to steal the blinds just to find out the Russians had pocket AA and got quads on turn and the river. McCain was so stupid to shout all along "Top pair, top pair" just to find out after the show down they lost somebody elses chips (the Georgians).

    Neither McCain nor Pailin are good enough players at the American Texas Holdem poker game or the Russian's chess game.
    The best game though in the world arena generaly speaking is the one in which all parties win, that game though has almost never been played by Washington. That game is for true Christians.
     
    ST12, Sep 21, 2008 IP
  2. baconbits

    baconbits Banned

    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #22
    That is perhaps the most idiotic and stupid post I have ever seen.
    Not only are you off topic but your off topic and ridiculous post is just pointless to this discussion.

    Please do not talk if you have nothing to say.
     
    baconbits, Sep 21, 2008 IP
  3. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #23
    And the award for the most overstretched analogy in an unrelated thread goes to....
     
    robjones, Sep 21, 2008 IP
  4. ST12

    ST12 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #24
    I wish the master of "beating the bush around" enlight us with some wisdom on why Pailin is so good to be the VP?
    Instead of just coming and telling everybody with vague descriptions how the world looks like through his "eyeglasses", that are some kind of window showcase demonstration of some sort of an advanced "intelligence". ;)
    .... Go ahead, share please your gems with us. :)

    Why Pailin for VP?
     
    ST12, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  5. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #25
    If you mean me... I dont feel a huge need to tell someone who cant vote in the election why he should vote one way or the other, or take advice on it from them either. I seriously doubt you are a registered US voter.

    As for the reasons I favor the McCain Palin ticket, theyve been enumerated in the early threads on the topic and I dont feel a need to repeat myself just because some have so little forum discipline they think each semithought of their own rates a new thread on a topic already under discussion. You want my opinion, check the threads where it resides.
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  6. gregdavidson

    gregdavidson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    160
    #26
    Because she supports war with Russia and Republicans love a war with no end in site!
     
    gregdavidson, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  7. ST12

    ST12 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #27
    As usual no clear cut answer ;)
    About my voting rights I have replied to that in a previous thread. Look for it you'll find it.

    (If you think Pailin and McCain are good for the love of wars they have, wars have never produced good results for America (with very very few exceptions).
    Ooooops, forgot they have produced great results for the military industrial complex.
     
    ST12, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  8. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #28
    If you two are so sure nothing good is ever accomplished by the US military you are of course welcome to share that opinion... thanks those in the US military that have safeguarded that right for over 200 years. :)
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  9. gregdavidson

    gregdavidson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    160
    #29
    Typical Republican response. It's FOR FREEDOM. If we were being attacked by actual country I would agree with you. But terrorists don't represent ANY country.
     
    gregdavidson, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  10. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #30
    Typical liberal response. Somebody declares war on us, but because they dont have a flag and a national anthem, it cant be won.

    Welcome to the world as it is instead of how we'd like it to be.
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  11. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #31
    Most of the buffoons that posted here do not know any more about the VP's Job either.

    The VP is the President Pro Temp of the Senate, and depending on how closely balanced the the Senate is, the VP is often time the deciding vote.

    The VP is also number two in charge of the Country. Number two Commander in Chief, number two leader should something happen to the President, ie., resign, be impeached and removed from office, or be killed.

    I do not believe the Constitution grants any executive powers to the VP, however the President can assign other powers as they see fit.

    I'm sure with a little research I could find more information about the VP's job. This is from memory from my Sophomore Year in HS around 87'.

    I have a feeling if you asked people on the street the same question, they'd not have a clue. Ultimately the VP has a great many responsibilities, one of which is in the Legislature as I mentioned previously.

    It might behoove some of you to take a history class or two to refresh your own memories on the way our system of government works, and what the responsibilities of the various roles in our government are. Seems to me that might be a bit more productive than producing such negative diatribe that seeks nothing other than to bash a person who is more qualified to be VP than one of the current Presidential candidates is as President.
     
    Mia, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  12. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    Rob, I'd say, it can't be won by the rules learned from warfare in WWI, WWII, and so forth. We have merely created generations more of Bin Ladens, and have remained stubborn in our unwillingness to face the naivete inherent to a kind of modern Wilsonian evangelism, ignoring that very world as it is, as you say.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  13. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #33
    I agree that the tactics of the past are of little use, but the fact that there are still fights worth fighting isn't. Tactics have to evolve, has always been that way... agree wholeheartedly. Nonetheless the bin laden types per binladens own words were strengthened when we bailed in Somalia instead of adapt... and the 'blachawk down" fiasco was largely due to a failure to learn from history. [Skip the movie, read the book]

    Vietnam should have taught us the folly of letting politicians in DC dictate tactical and equipment calls... but the lesson went unlearned and our guys were using makeshift changes in support needs due to Clinton administration (starring Warren Christopher) denying them the appropriate tools for the job. You cannot use a Blackhawk to do the job of a C130 Spectre... or Humvees to do a job of armored troop vehicles or tanks.

    We lost men due entirely to political decisions that it would *look* bad to have the appropriate assets there. It *looked* worse when the lack of those assets resulted in bodies of Americans dragged thru Mogidishu... and then Clinton pulled our guys out. The men on the ground did a hell of a job against overwhelming odds, but they were betrayed in multiple ways before and after by politicians. "Turning tail" as soon as blood was spilled on our side was a mistake, as exemplified by binladens statements that this emboldened them.

    We do have to adjust tactics to the scenario, but I do not think we need to effectively surrender just because we are targeted by a non-state enemy. There are a few that would trade out the stars and stripes for a white sheet. It wouldnt save us, it would just make us a more appealing target.

    In short, the bear has picked a fight with us, and you dont stop fighting the bear when you get tired of the fight, ya stop when he does.
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  14. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #34
    Basically, Rob, I'd ask: who is the bear? A man? A movement? If a movement, where to begin - is it Al Qaeda itself? Upper echelons? Or is it the kid in the fundamentalist madrassa, learning of us as en evil to be hated with every fibre of his being, to his death?

    It feels like we're using the mindset of standard warfare, when what we have is a dike riddled with holes; so long as we don't seek to patch the very foundations of that dike, we'll continue to see an endless series of holes, endless offshoots of Al Qaeda, endless Bin Ladens, once we nail the prize we so fruitlessly claim to seek.

    Say we achieve it, all these last 8 years, the summit of our stated goal, a kind of global police action to find one man: We capture or kill Bin Laden. By doing so, we've achieved his martyrdom, and glorification for his cause, and little else. This isn't acting smart, to me.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  15. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #35
    Bin Ladens son left him shortly after 9/11 and moved back to Saudi, basically after saying 'where was your brain, you've brought down hell on us". The war on terror is merely a response to war being declared on us. You don't win a fight by taking punches honorably, you win it by giving them in greater number or effect than the opposition. We basically fought that same war in Texas with the Commanche, they were not centrally organized and if one chief signed a treaty it did not even bind his own men, much less other factions. In the end we DID win that war... we fought til the other side got tired of fighting.

    The fight is with radical muslims that've declared war on us, and selecting a better more defined enemy isnt one of our choices. We still have to fight it unless we'd just rather roll up in a ball and outguess 'em as to which building they'll blow up next. I wish we had a more defined enemy, but we would be crazy not to make every attempt to kill the one that clearly wishes to kill us.

    In the same vein I wish nuclear weapons were not in anyone's inventory, but that doesnt mean I want to get rid of ours on the thought that it makes the world safer. It only ensures us of getting a better view of what they look like coming toward us. We just dont get to choose whether or not there is a war WITH terrorists, we're just trying to decide where it gets fought.
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  16. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #36
    I approve this message.
     
    LogicFlux, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  17. jkjazz

    jkjazz Peon

    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #37
    Well said!
     
    jkjazz, Sep 23, 2008 IP
  18. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #38
    Rob, I'm reminded of something I've seen, in a world I move in, the teaching of tactical applications to military, armed forces, and public personnel, and assault awareness/prevention for women. You might have seen them - the weekend warrior workshops, purporting to teach women techniques that can adequately address personal security needs over the course of a couple of hours. Bullshit. An egregiously false sense of security.

    I feel much the same here. The party line is that Bin Laden is the baddy we need to get, and the world will be relatively more safe once again with his death or capture. Billions of dollars and years devoted to an unprecedented search for one man. All we've done is provided a demonstration effect of how little hegemonic power we do possess. It doesn't make sense to me.

    Your Comanche example doesn't apply. That war was geographically bounded within the sovereign territory of the United States (unless you happened to be an Indian at the time, but that is another story), at a time when relatively more unlimited resources were available to wage that bounded fight. Our nation is stretched filament-thin, the "fight" is the entire planet, and it isn't with one man, or one movement.

    I don't understand your nuclear armaments comparison. I'm not advocating the disbandment of our armed forces. I'm advocating we use them more intelligently than as a global dragnet for one man, or one movement. We cannot hope to end the audience for Bin Laden's hatred at the end of a gun, it seems to me.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 24, 2008 IP
  19. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #39
    Ive never suggested that killing bin laden ends the conflict. Tthe only mention of him was the example of what his son said. It is pertinent in that just as we have people who consider that we're fighting an insurmountable task because of the opponent's lack centralization, there are fears on the other side because they are up against a force of substantial size and might. It is always possible to forget the enemy has fears and weaknesses too.

    The commanche example doesnt fall due to the geographic limits as you say. They werent geographically limited to the borders of Texas... those are only visible on paper and they were the finest light cavalry ever assembled and also roamed into the surrounding states and mexico. The distances were magnified by the fact that transportation was limited to foot or a single horsepower and the vast distances of the region didnt always include water (and the Commanche knew where it was better than the whites).

    They were not collected in huge bands like you see in the movies with huge villages and a wise old chief who held sway over all... they were in tiny bands and raiding parties and were dispersed all over the territory. Their technology was more primitive than a gun but more effective for the type warfare... as a bow reloaded a helluvalot faster than a single shot rifle or pistol. They had an advantage in firepower until the Colt Patterson and the Henry/Winchester rifles tuned the corner on technical advantage. Still it took a long time to win because they favored stealth attacks to setpiece engagements in battle lines.

    Any of this sound familiar?

    Yeah, it is still a fair example of what we're facing, There was no place one could go to get them in massive numbers, they had to be engaged where they could be found.

    The nuclear comment was not suggesting nukes have a use in this conflict, it was a comparison mentioning sometimes what we'd like to do to feel safer can actually make us less safe. You think I am proposing something to make us safe that sends a false sends of security, I think others are doing the same. We arent fighting people that will quit if we quit.

    We can disagree... but I believe the radical muslims (no they arent a country, but they still have the ability to blow shit up) are a worthwhile and necessary target. They *already* declared war on us. Even when they arent after us the tenets of their religion have them killing anyone else they disagree with. I favor giving as many of 'em as possible a chance to meet Allah now, and if that "breeds terrorists"... repeat the process until Darwinian theory kicks in and the ones that are not terrorists are the ones that are alive to reproduce.

    I didnt say it is easy, I said if they want to kill us we HAVE to kill them. That isnt an exageration, it is survival. Anyone that thinks we can appeal to "reason" with them is forgetting that it isnt a rational act to fly a plane into a building or strap c4 and nails to your chest. These guys have no value for life and are in it to the death... I just want to accelerate the process.
     
    robjones, Sep 24, 2008 IP
  20. gregdavidson

    gregdavidson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    160
    #40
    Hey, it's not like the war is paid for by tax payers anyway. If McCain is elected into office you can look forward to going to war with Iran and perhaps Russia. Besides making enemies with more countries, we'll probably end up paying TRILLIONS of tax payer dollars to finance those wars plus THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES. And for what? Because McCain is too stubborn to be able to find cheaper and more peaceful solutions?
     
    gregdavidson, Sep 24, 2008 IP