Any random knucklehead could go on TV and say the things she says. Here’s some of her penetrating political insight:
Anyone want to diagram this sentence:
She’s a dunce, but I guess some people find that easy to relate to… LOL
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
Obviously most liberals dont accept invites to come on shows like the O’Reilly factor because he will cut through the bullshit with facts. Facts dont lie and will expose them. Then they try to redirect and when hit with the facts again, left liberals do what they always do, argue with emotion and not facts. Then by the end you see their double standard. Again.
Liberals get chopped up by O’Reilly all the time.[/quote]
Barack Obama did like three shows’ worth of interviews with O’Reilly, who then said nice things about the President after it was over. I know, Obama isn’t really very liberal though, he’s a centrist.
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
Obviously most liberals dont accept invites to come on shows like the O’Reilly factor because he will cut through the bullshit with facts. Facts dont lie and will expose them. Then they try to redirect and when hit with the facts again, left liberals do what they always do, argue with emotion and not facts. Then by the end you see their double standard. Again.
Liberals get chopped up by O’Reilly all the time.[/quote]
No, they dont.
He is a loud, obnoxious bully who will try to yell down dissent and cuts the microphone of opponents he can not “defeat” any other way.
I cannot imagine any self respecting person who disagrees with him to go on his show.
Noone needs to be a punching bag for his self aggrandizing performances.
And yes, I have seen his shows.
This makes much more sense to me than a run for President, which really struck me as too ambitious.
Her strength is her fan base. And they love her for largely cultural rather than policy reasons – she hits the conservative cultural notes very effectively, and you hear much more about those than about her policy objectives as governor of Alaska.
Those are strengths that make her ideal as a pundit but weak as a national politician. Being reviled by many doesn’t really hurt a TV host (see Oprah, Glenn Beck) but it does hurt someone trying to win a national election. Also, policy subtleties that don’t fit well into an ideological box: necessary for the Presidency, not so much for TV.
Of course, I want her on TV instead of running for office because I don’t want her governing me. But I also think, more objectively, that this is likely her future career.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
This makes much more sense to me than a run for President, which really struck me as too ambitious.
Her strength is her fan base. And they love her for largely cultural rather than policy reasons – she hits the conservative cultural notes very effectively, and you hear much more about those than about her policy objectives as governor of Alaska.
Those are strengths that make her ideal as a pundit but weak as a national politician. Being reviled by many doesn’t really hurt a TV host (see Oprah, Glenn Beck) but it does hurt someone trying to win a national election. Also, policy subtleties that don’t fit well into an ideological box: necessary for the Presidency, not so much for TV.
Of course, I want her on TV instead of running for office because I don’t want her governing me. But I also think, more objectively, that this is likely her future career.[/quote]
Yet, she is no more right than Obama is left. I’d much rather have her as President than Obama.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
Obviously most liberals dont accept invites to come on shows like the O’Reilly factor because he will cut through the bullshit with facts. Facts dont lie and will expose them. Then they try to redirect and when hit with the facts again, left liberals do what they always do, argue with emotion and not facts. Then by the end you see their double standard. Again.
Liberals get chopped up by O’Reilly all the time.[/quote]
Barack Obama did like three shows’ worth of interviews with O’Reilly, who then said nice things about the President after it was over. I know, Obama isn’t really very liberal though, he’s a centrist.[/quote]
MOST liberals. Obama did go on there but thats when he was running for president and it was to help reach an audience to gain votes. And O’Reilly did say nice things. I think he tries hard now TO say nice things about Obama. His administration maybe not so much.Never the less, here is no way Obama would go on there now, which kinda proves my point.
Yes Bill O does talk over people and sometimes its annoying, but over all I like what he brings to the table ie the topics to debate.
Bill O does rip people to shreds. Ask the guy who is the defense lawyer for KSM who was on. That topic in itself is crazy Dem shit and is another arguement for another time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
This makes much more sense to me than a run for President, which really struck me as too ambitious.
Her strength is her fan base. And they love her for largely cultural rather than policy reasons – she hits the conservative cultural notes very effectively, and you hear much more about those than about her policy objectives as governor of Alaska.
Those are strengths that make her ideal as a pundit but weak as a national politician. Being reviled by many doesn’t really hurt a TV host (see Oprah, Glenn Beck) but it does hurt someone trying to win a national election. Also, policy subtleties that don’t fit well into an ideological box: necessary for the Presidency, not so much for TV.
Of course, I want her on TV instead of running for office because I don’t want her governing me. But I also think, more objectively, that this is likely her future career.[/quote]
Yet, she is no more right than Obama is left. I’d much rather have her as President than Obama.
[/quote]
Maybe I would too, if I were a Republican, but I’m not.
Well, exactly. Her appeal is that she’s viewed as Jane Doe. She’s an underdog. People root for her.
Can that get you to the Presidency? I’m not sure. Nate Silver is bullish on Palin, and I usually trust his analysis, but it is true that she inspires negative opinions among Republican officials and self-described conservatives. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/this-is-great-news-for-sarah-palin.html
You have to keep in mind that her base is a minority within the Republican party, which itself is a minority within the US.
I think the next few years are going to be rough for Democrats. They’ve been ambitious and not altogether successful policy-wise. Part of that is bad luck (inheriting a recession) and part of it, in my opinion, is bad judgment. And the anti-establishment Right has been pretty creative and vibrant. They give me the willies, of course, but I can see that they’re a protest movement that’s quite good at gathering momentum and making the most of the press. During Bush’s first term, liberals essentially cussed under our breath and didn’t accomplish much; the Tea Partiers put us to shame as far as successful dissent goes. So I do think there’s going to be some carnage at the polls. (Metaphorically, thank God.)
I just have trouble seeing Palin in particular as viable. She’d have to win over a lot of people who aren’t already Palin fans.
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
Never the less, here is no way Obama would go on there now, which kinda proves my point.
[/quote]
I like the way that total conjecture on your part (Hey, no way Obama would ever go back on O’Reilly’s show again) “proves” your point.
Nice one.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
Never the less, here is no way Obama would go on there now, which kinda proves my point.
[/quote]
I like the way that total conjecture on your part (Hey, no way Obama would ever go back on O’Reilly’s show again) “proves” your point.
Nice one.[/quote]
ok lets examine my conjecture. Honestly do you think Obama would come back on? Look at it for what it is. The Dems as a whole are not looking good right now. Policy issues and shenanigans are everywhere. That is why alot of them wont come on and be subjected to questions like:
Why are you trying to close Gitmo and send terrorists back only to have them try to attack us again? (I realize Bush released some)
Why did you try to cram health care down our throats and just to get it passed? Oh and why are your people holding secret closed door meetings at night to try to pass certain measures.
Why are you giving terrorists rights and trials in our country when they attacked us with the intent to kill people?
Why wont you call them islamic terrorists when thats what they are?
These are legitimate questions and would have to be explained man. If there was a really good logical factual explaination for them, then some Dems might come on but there isnt.
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
[quote]K2000 wrote:
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
Never the less, here is no way Obama would go on there now, which kinda proves my point.
[/quote]
I like the way that total conjecture on your part (Hey, no way Obama would ever go back on O’Reilly’s show again) “proves” your point.
Nice one.[/quote]
ok lets examine my conjecture. Honestly do you think Obama would come back on? Look at it for what it is. The Dems as a whole are not looking good right now. Policy issues and shenanigans are everywhere. That is why alot of them wont come on and be subjected to questions like:
Why are you trying to close Gitmo and send terrorists back only to have them try to attack us again? (I realize Bush released some)
Why did you try to cram health care down our throats and just to get it passed? Oh and why are your people holding secret closed door meetings at night to try to pass certain measures.
Why are you giving terrorists rights and trials in our country when they attacked us with the intent to kill people?
Why wont you call them islamic terrorists when thats what they are?
These are legitimate questions and would have to be explained man. If there was a really good logical factual explaination for them, then some Dems might come on but there isnt.
[/quote]
Well at least two of these questions are so loaded that he wpi�¶d need a truck to haul them into the studio.
I also find it highly disingenious to frame the Guantanamo issue the way you did.
Let me try a few questions:
Why are you still holding people captive without constitutional authority?
Why do you even hold trials when you reserve the right to hold them indefinitely if they are found “not guilty”?
Why do you think you have the authority to kidnap people of unclear status from cambat zones and deny them the most basic right of the Geneva Convention.
Why do you kidnap European citizens and turn them over to countries where torture is par pf the course?
What gives you the authority to do that?
And one for you that is probably more up your alley:
Even if we granted that the interstate commerce clause grants the federal government the right to regulate all commercial activity, which is surprising to say the least, how come it also grants the federal government the right to punish people who are not partaking in a commercial activity i.e. buy health insurance.
If that precedence is accepted whats next?
Will everyone ordered to buy American cars, tvs, food?
[quote]orion wrote:
Well at least two of these questions are so loaded that he wpi�??�?�¶d need a truck to haul them into the studio.
I also find it highly disingenious to frame the Guantanamo issue the way you did.
[/quote]
Do we really have to go here again. You are one of the more intelligent posters on this board, but you completely lose your mind when it comes to this topic.
Why would treatment of foreign enemy combatants fall under the constitution? I guess we can shoot them in face or blow them up, but we can’t hold them?
Why don’t you take a stab at this? I bet you could come up with some compelling reasons if you were being honest with yourself.
Which Geneva Convention right are we violating? Which option do you think would most likely replace kidnapping if it were excluded from combat options? 1) Kill them on the battle field. 2) Let them go and continue fight
Now that you’ve selected the most likely alternative, how is this a more moral option?
What denies “us” the authority to do this? If you think it is out Constitution, maybe you could find evidence of our founders acting or advocating for the treatment you think is proper in war.
By the way, I find all this activity unbecoming, but it doesn’t even register on scale of unbecoming when compared to other accepted war tactics. I would rather have us do this, than bomb houses and villages.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
By the way, I find all this activity unbecoming, but it doesn’t even register on scale of unbecoming when compared to other accepted war tactics. I would rather have us do this, than bomb houses and villages.
[/quote]
You do both!
US planes killed a whopping 100 and somethink people for TWO al quaeda operatives and now pretty much all of Yemen hates your guts and US forces still kidnap and torture people.
Now if I was cynical I would say that that tactic will lead to an ever expanding war and therefore an ever expanding government and ever expanding mlitary expenses.
And yes, I completely lose it when people justify abductions and torture.
Especially when people that had nothing to do with anything are kidnapped, tortured and then released in a countzry where they are promptly tortured again just because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I also get irrate when people who know that their government could not even find its own ass with a compass and a flashlight is so fucking efficient that everyone detained in Guantanamo simply MUST be a terrorist even if they could not build a case against him after years of detention.
Why is it the in the case of “fighting terrorism” the federal government suddenly mutates into the shining beacon of efficiency?
And if they cannot even win the “war on drugs” in their own maximum security prisons, why should they be able to win the “war on terror” thousands of miles away from home?
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
Obviously most liberals dont accept invites to come on shows like the O’Reilly factor because he will cut through the bullshit with facts. Facts dont lie and will expose them. Then they try to redirect and when hit with the facts again, left liberals do what they always do, argue with emotion and not facts. Then by the end you see their double standard. Again.
Liberals get chopped up by O’Reilly all the time.[/quote]
O’Reilly is little more than a self aggrandizing loudmouth. You might see it as “chopping people up”, but it’s him talking over others and drowning out facts.
[quote]orion wrote:
You do both!
US planes killed a whopping 100 and somethink people for TWO al quaeda operatives and now pretty much all of Yemen hates your guts and US forces still kidnap and torture people.
[/quote]
I understand that we do both. It’s funny to me that the more brutal is an accepted part of war, and people spout out off about the other while shaking the Geneva convention in their fist.
I agree. I guess I am more comfortable with troops capturing an holding combatants, than I am with them blowing their brains out.
You’re a sharp guy. You understand consequences of action. Let’s look at this from a soldier’s point of view.
A soldier is put in a situation where he can either kill or capture an enemy combatant on the battle field. What do you think this soldier is likely to do if:
A) He is relatively sure a captured combatant will not be returned to the battle field to kill him and his fellow soldiers.
B) He is relatively sure a captured combatant will return to the battle field to kill him and his fellow soldiers.
Would you rather have the combatant killed or captured?
Should the Allies have released captured German, Italian, or Japanese soldiers before WWII was over?
When you are at war you either kill or capture those that you are at war with. You don’t let them return to the battle field to fight. This would be just plain stupid. We are talking life and death, not fucking dodge ball.
[quote]orion wrote:
And yes, I completely lose it when people justify abductions and torture.
Especially when people that had nothing to do with anything are kidnapped, tortured and then released in a countzry where they are promptly tortured again just because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I also get irrate when people who know that their government could not even find its own ass with a compass and a flashlight is so fucking efficient that everyone detained in Guantanamo simply MUST be a terrorist even if they could not build a case against him after years of detention.
Why is it the in the case of “fighting terrorism” the federal government suddenly mutates into the shining beacon of efficiency?
And if they cannot even win the “war on drugs” in their own maximum security prisons, why should they be able to win the “war on terror” thousands of miles away from home?
[/quote]
It’s called collateral damage. This is and always has been a part of war. Innocents get bombed, shot, stumble on land mines, etc. This is one of a hundred reasons war should not be entered into lightly. Innocents getting snatched and questioned seems pretty mild as far as collateral damage goes.
If you think we should not be at war, fine. I agree with you. But don’t pretend like this is disturbing or disgusting as far as war goes. I’d say it’s pretty fucking mild.