The Sarah Palin I Know

[bigmick22]

I am appalled by the fact that democrats feel the need to defend accusations that Obama might be a muslim.

Muslim does not equal "bad person" and does not equal "terrorist" !!

[rxpharm]

There is no debate that the current administration has made huge mistakes in their strategy, but we are getting far off topic.  I feel that the appointment of an inexperienced VP candidate was a desperate move to keep his campaign on track at the expense of the nation in the event he wins, shows the true nature of McCain.

As for the global war on terror, I would say bombings in the UK, Spain, Turkey, Moscow, China, Bali, Indonesia, and the Philippines all related to Islamic radicals is not imaginary.

[smuttleydfs]

(bigmick22 @ Sep. 13 2008,10:59) I'm not denying the terrorist attacks of 9/11 or that they were terrible but if "terrorists" were waging "war" on the US, then there would be many more such incidents ... but there aren't

I'd also like to dispute the use of the word "Global". I know Americans think they're the centre (yes - that is the correct way to sell centre)  of the world but your oil-grab in Iraq and dispatching of Afghanistan back to medieval times do not constitute a global war.  It may be good news for oil companies, defense contractors and Haliburton, but it's not a global war

And again I completely agree with the your comment about democrats being forced to defend Obama over his name that is the hypocrisy and myopia of the GOP and the Christian right in the US. My feelings are that although I don't believe in God and consider myself agnostic, everyone has the right to worship whatever "God" like figure they choose. Be it Allah, Buddah, Jesus, or FOOTBALL!!!!!

I guess Madrid and London were just mistakes and the terrorists actually thought they were in Chicago and Dallas .......

As far as "many more attacks on the US" I just suppose it is possible the steped up security may have just a little something to do with that.

No Americans don't consider themselves the "center"

(Center or centre (see American and British English spelling differences) may refer to)

of the universe.....that is applied to Americans by the rest of the world. I don't see other citizens of the world banging on the door to the degree they do to get in the US to try to live in England, Spain, Ireland etc etc......

Sorry it is just a fact of life..........I 100% agree with you that Iraq is a merely an oil grab by this administration but we brought the war to the Afghanis because they were sheltering Terrorists like Osama and Al Queda. And we hadn't have broght the war to them they would have continued to bring it to us. I have no qualms whatsoever in our presence in Afghanistan although I think we have reached our limit there.

[bigmick22]

I was a but ambiguous - I've been talking about the U.S.-led campaign against the spread of terrorism aka "The War on Terrorism". I don't see them doing much to help in UK, Turkey, Madrid, Indonesia etc - i.e. I don't think US is involved in a "Global" war at all (personal opinon shared by some).

I know i's not usually considered good form to quote ad nauseum from other websites but some of the points made in wikipedia article (as ever, I'm coming from the point of view of my opinion which will definitely not agree with those of others on this forum) are expressed better than I could manage

---------

The official objectives of the 2001 War on Terrorism are to counter terrorist threats, prevent terrorist acts and curb the influence of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.[1][6] Both the term and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, human rights abuses and other violations of international law.[7][8][9]

.....

The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, Ken McDonald €” Britain's most senior criminal prosecutor €” has stated that those responsible for acts of terror such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not "soldiers" in a war, but "inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a "culture of legislative restraint" was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws, and that a "primary purpose" of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to "abandon our values." He stated that in the eyes of the UK criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be "proportionate, and grounded in due process and the rule of law":

"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement."[20]

...

Policy experts have criticized the €œWar on Terrorism€ as an irresponsible metaphor, arguing that €œwar€ must by definition be waged against nations€”not against broad and controversial categories of activity such as €œterrorism.€ Cognitive linguist George Lakoff writes:

"Literal€”not metaphorical€”wars are conducted against armies of other nations. They end when the armies are defeated militarily and a peace treaty is signed. Terror is an emotional state. It is in us. It is not an army. And you can€™t defeat it militarily and you can€™t sign a peace treaty with it."[92]

It should be noted that in the past leaders of the United States has declared other open-ended campaigns with similar rhetoric. Examples include Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, and Richard Nixon's War on Drugs and War on Cancer.

Another common criticism is that the term is not correct since the war is really against Islamist fascists and not against their tactics. Examples given include World War II which was not a war against blitzkrieg or kamikaze pilots.[citation needed]

Dr. David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency and counterterrorism advisor to Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has asserted that:

"We must distinguish Al Qa'eda and the broader militant movements it symbolises €“ entities that use terrorism €“ from the tactic of terrorism itself. In practice, as will be demonstrated, the 'War on Terrorism' is a defensive war against a world-wide Islamist jihad, a diverse confederation of movements that uses terrorism as its principal, but not its sole tactic."[93]

Francis Fukuyama, a prominent former neoconservative, has made the similar point that "The term €œwar on terrorism€ is a misnomer, resulting in distorted ideas of the main threat facing Americans today. Terrorism is only a means to an end; in this respect, a €œwar on terror€ makes no more sense than a war on submarines."[94]

The term "terrorism" has been also been characterized as unacceptably vague. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime observes:

"The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter."[95]

Opponents critical of this inherent subjectivity point out that governments such as Iran, Lebanon, and Venezuela consistently use the term "terrorism" to describe actions taken by the United States.[96]

Further criticism maintains that the War on Terrorism provides a framework for perpetual war; that the announcement of such open-ended goals produces a state of endless conflict, since "terrorist groups" can continue to arise indefinitely.[97]. President Bush has pledged that the War on Terrorism €œwill not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.€[98] During a July 2007 visit to the United States, newly appointed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown defined the War on Terror, specifically the element involving conflict with Al Qaeda, as "a generational battle".[99]

The "War on Terror" is also criticized as complete fraud, and a casus belli for any imperial adventures into the Middle East and anywhere else "al-Qaeda" might turn up. Lately, this means Africa, where US/UK based corporations are clashing with Chinese interests

......

Anyway, while not quite off-topic, sorry for the tangent. I'll stay out of this thread now

[smuttleydfs]

(rxpharm @ Sep. 13 2008,11:33) There is no debate that the current administration has made huge mistakes in their strategy, but we are getting far off topic.  I feel that the appointment of an inexperienced VP candidate was a desperate move to keep his campaign on track at the expense of the nation in the event he wins, shows the true nature of McCain.

As for the global war on terror, I would say bombings in the UK, Spain, Turkey, Moscow, China, Bali, Indonesia, and the Philippines all related to Islamic radicals is not imaginary.

What McSame has done, and it has worked so far, is to try and stem the tide of attention that the Dems, particularly Obama  have received since their convention.

Hopefully the "Palin factor" will be a fad that will go away like the hula hoop and slinky. If not and it carries over we will have a clueless VeeP who would be expected to lock horns with Putin and Kim Jong Il's replacement in future potential crisises

[bigmick22]

(smuttleydfs @ Sep. 13 2008,12:55) . I don't see other citizens of the world banging on the door to the degree they do to get in the US to try to live in England, Spain, Ireland etc etc......

you might not see it but that doesn't mean it it's not happening

immigration into UK and Ireland, in particular, is very high

ireland has the highest population growth rate now in Europe - almost entirely due to immigration.

Glad to see we agree on somethings though - e.g. Iraq and Obama (your point about Obama was included in the quote box by mistake and I missed it first time)

By the way, in case it appears that I am anti-american , that is not the case. I currently live in Texas and like it fine. I just don't think there is a Global War on terror. And I think the concept has been hijacked by certain parties to further their own interests - sometimes at the expense of american people ( I think it's easier for potential "terrorists" to fly into the US clean and then pick up the ingredients required for a home-made bomb - or a gun - than try to smuggle one thru customs and now I spend an inordinate amount of time in fucking airports taking shoes on and off and on and off again ... and I hate the sight of other people's feet )

[bigmick22]

(smuttleydfs @ Sep. 13 2008,13:03) What McSame has done, and it has worked so far, is to try and stem the tide of attention that the Dems, particularly Obama have received since their convention.

they've been very good at that - republicans come across as being a bit more street smart.. unfortunately

(smuttleydfs @ Sep. 13 2008,13:03)
Hopefully the "Palin factor" will be a fad that will go away like the hula hoop and slinky.

I hope so

[EyeMahk]

Can any of you guys think that maybe, just maybe, some people would prefer McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, and that some of those people are not bigots, not racists, not stupid and not rednecks? Do you really believe that everyone who doesn't think the same is you is an idiot?

It's called tolerance for other people's political beliefs and preference of candidates.

[katoeylover]

I agree.

doesnt make you a bad person because you like McCain/Palin over the other two.

[Lefty]

(EyeMahk @ Sep. 14 2008,07:13) Do you really believe that everyone who doesn't think the same is you is an idiot?

Yes, either that or misguided.


Seriously though, if they can give me some specific reasons, based on the issues, why they support McCain/Palin, I'd be more than willing to listen and exchange points of view. Especially in person, over a few cold Beer Changs, because I'm not a good typist.
Around here, in the hinterlands of the Great Northwest, when dealing with what I refer to as the Ham and Eggs crowd, I get reasons that just make me shake my head.

[Torurot]

>>Please point out where in the constitution there is an anticipation of multi terrorist attacks on our soil? When the constitution was written there was no anticipation that we would be involved in a global war>>

Define "terrorist". You will doubtless correct me, but the US constitution was framed after a very bloody war of "independence" with millions? killed through "terrorist" acts, the war on Mexico, Canada etc etc.. The framers really did know something about "terrorism". Some what facetiously, the US constitution was not written with the thought of aeroplanes, or computers, or even telephones, and probably not even electric light. Therein lies it's flexibility.

WRT to the DNC & RNC [pre-emptive] arrests of "protesters", and the herding and arrests of "protestors" AND the fourth estate, there are dozens of links which are at divergence with your belief. Referencing them here will likely not change your opinion that the police acted at all times appropriately.

To specifically answer your earlier question. NZ, Australia, and any number of European countries, Scotland, Ireland, Wales (but probably not England) would have allowed such POLITICAL protest and demonstration without over reaction. Part of my point is that America in the last eight years has become more "police state" than at any previous time.

Ask your self who directed and ordered the arrests at a POLITICAL protest. Such things do not happen in a vacuum. The current government and it's actions worldwide I do have a problem with. I guess what you choose to do IN your own country is your own business, but talk of "democracy" & "freedoms" are overstated in the "current climate". Your " I would prefer being an american above all other countries" is duly noted. Most posters to this list would likely defend their own country.

[sev7en]

Why are you talking so much? Old man wins, brotha goes back to the projects. Back to normal.

[smuttleydfs]

(EyeMahk @ Sep. 13 2008,18:13) Can any of you guys think that maybe, just maybe, some people would prefer McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, and that some of those people are not bigots, not racists, not stupid and not rednecks? Do you really believe that everyone who doesn't think the same is you is an idiot?

It's called tolerance for other people's political beliefs and preference of candidates.

I'm quite sorry but I can't see where I called anyone an idiot or a redneck for supporting mCsame/palin.........ignorant maybe and I stand by that assertion. And I think if you travel through redneck land you will find a ton of support for the aforementioned reich wingers simply because Obama is A) Black and B) named Obama. Believe me I know I used to live there.

Although it doesn't make you a "bad" person if you are voting because you feel there will be "change" from the current administration simply naive and misinformed. But if you are voting "against" Obama/Biden then you are simply wrong. If there was a reich winger worth his salt and better then Obama I would gladly vote for them to get my home back on the right track. I actually voted for Regan both times, Bush 1 and Bush 2 (the first time) I did pass on Dole though and I was by far not the only one

Torurot.........no mater how much bull you put out you aren't going to make a viable case..........You still have yet to point out what country would allow unabashed protesting without reprecussion..........Yes the US was created by terrorism and you are by far not the first one to pose that lame arguement. The difference we have here is the US was protecting their homeland and creating a new country. It was shameful the way the Native Americans were treated but that is the extent of the shame. They drove out a country that led by a tyranical monarchy was not allowing any freedoms at all. How does that compare with terrorists invading our country and killing thousands? Rhetorical question there isn't any comparison..........and it is really sad and grasping at straw that you would even make such a pathetic attempt at comparisons.........

[sev7en]

(EyeMahk @ Sep. 14 2008,07:13) Can any of you guys think that maybe, just maybe, some people would prefer McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, and that some of those people are not bigots, not racists, not stupid and not rednecks?

No.

[Torurot]

White Privilege, White Entitlement and the 2008 Election
By Tim Wise

For those who still can€™t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin€™ redneck," like Bristol Palin€™s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don€™t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you€™re "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it€™s good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn€™t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she€™s being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you€™re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you€™re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don€™t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn€™t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God€™s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you€™re just a good church-going Christian, but if you€™re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you€™re an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O€™Reilly means you€™re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren€™t sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it€™s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.