You Guys Ready for Sarah Palin Yet?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Sarah would never sign anything of this sort.

[/quote]

I sincerely hope you’re joking. Of course she would. She also has the same level of mastery of foreign policy as a box of pancake mix.[/quote]

Well I have to agree with you on that one. No way she’d be savvy enough to go on an apology tour, bow to foreign leaders, treat our enemies like our friends and our friends (Israel) like our enemies. And of course their was that brilliant piece of foreign policy…what was it called? Oh yeah…Benghazi! First time an American Ambassador was killed in over 40 years. But that was all over a video on the Internet it wasn’t terrorism according to Obama. Oh wait…he was wrong wasn’t he? But at least the press made him look like an idiot for saying such a thing. Oh wait no they didn’t either they covered for him.

[/quote]

Your post is a mirror image of Fox News talking points. Have you considered looking into these complex issues on your own instead of being spoon fed by partisan hacks? The same would apply if you watched MSNBC. Foreign Policy issues are rarely white or black, but various shades of grey. You don’t seem to understand the extent to which Iraq War damaged our standing in the international community. Heaven forbid that the president execute one of his office’s historical roles, that of chief diplomat. Bengazi? Yes, the administration could have been more forthright with the American people. Unfortunately, it was election season. I hope you were equally outraged at the strategic blunder in Iraq that claimed countless more American lives? Also, I count 4 American ambassadors that have been killed in your time-frame of 40 years. Since 1973, we have lost ambassadors Cleo A. Noel Jr, Rodger P. Davies, Francis E. Meloy Jr, and Adolph Dubs were in targeted killings.[/quote]

I stand corrected on the number of years but I am correct on the number of deaths by terrorism. Adolph Dubs was the most recent Ambassador who was killed by terrorists. The date of his death was 1979. That was 33 years ago (not 40). That’s when we had another ineffectual democratic President, Jimmy Carter. I guess the terrorists just seem to know huh? . . .

As for Obama’s foreign policy, he doesn’t have one. But you already know that you’re a sharp guy.

As for Palin, I would say in raw intelligence she is in obama’s league no question. I honestly think that Obama is far more sizzle than steak.

[/quote]

Nope. Wrong again. Cleo A. Noel was assassinated by the PLO (Black September) in 1973 during the Nixon administration. Your quick google search should have informed you of that. Also, you never said deaths by “terrorism.” Rather, you said “First time an American Ambassador was killed in over 40 years.” Regardless, how would you be correct if you weren’t aware of the deaths in the first place? [/quote]

LOL…1979 came 6 years after 1973. That means that the most recent terrorist attack to kill one of our Ambassadors was 33 years ago.

You’re going to read this and feel silly huh?

That’s okay…most people eventually end up feeling that way who try to defend Obama.

142

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Legionary wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the extent to which Iraq War damaged our standing in the international community.[/quote]

That is actually the funniest and most inaccurate thing that you said, other than your other mistake about the Ambassador being killed in 1979.

There was a poll done (ot long ago) of those living in the Middle East. And it seems that their respect for the USA is at an all time low. Yes…even lower than when the evil George Bush (who was a far better President than Obamawitz by the way).

In fact, many of the men in the Middle East refer to obama as a “woman”. If you’re at all familiar with Middle Eastern culture that’s quite an insult.

But hey we still have freedom of religion in this country so you can worship whomever you like. Just don’t try to sell me your tin God. I think Obama is a loser.

143

It’s always the same… The purpose of the thread, I believe, was to discuss whether or not Sarah Palin was a viable POTUS candidate and yet at the slightest criticism of her it becomes about who else is less qualifed. Just defend her merit - no need to attack anyone else.

It does appear that the liberal posters accept criticism of ‘their’ people in a somewhat more mature manner.

144

[quote]winkel wrote:
It’s always the same… The purpose of the thread, I believe, was to discuss whether or not Sarah Palin was a viable POTUS candidate and yet at the slightest criticism of her it becomes about who else is less qualifed. Just defend her merit - no need to attack anyone else.

It does appear that the liberal posters accept criticism of ‘their’ people in a somewhat more mature manner.

[/quote]

Das ist prima Freund.

145

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Sarah would never sign anything of this sort.

[/quote]

I sincerely hope you’re joking. Of course she would. She also has the same level of mastery of foreign policy as a box of pancake mix.[/quote]

Well I have to agree with you on that one. No way she’d be savvy enough to go on an apology tour, bow to foreign leaders, treat our enemies like our friends and our friends (Israel) like our enemies. And of course their was that brilliant piece of foreign policy…what was it called? Oh yeah…Benghazi! First time an American Ambassador was killed in over 40 years. But that was all over a video on the Internet it wasn’t terrorism according to Obama. Oh wait…he was wrong wasn’t he? But at least the press made him look like an idiot for saying such a thing. Oh wait no they didn’t either they covered for him.

[/quote]

Your post is a mirror image of Fox News talking points. Have you considered looking into these complex issues on your own instead of being spoon fed by partisan hacks? The same would apply if you watched MSNBC. Foreign Policy issues are rarely white or black, but various shades of grey. You don’t seem to understand the extent to which Iraq War damaged our standing in the international community. Heaven forbid that the president execute one of his office’s historical roles, that of chief diplomat. Bengazi? Yes, the administration could have been more forthright with the American people. Unfortunately, it was election season. I hope you were equally outraged at the strategic blunder in Iraq that claimed countless more American lives? Also, I count 4 American ambassadors that have been killed in your time-frame of 40 years. Since 1973, we have lost ambassadors Cleo A. Noel Jr, Rodger P. Davies, Francis E. Meloy Jr, and Adolph Dubs were in targeted killings.[/quote]

You are wise beyond your years , you are called a liberal because you disagree with the Circle Jerk Society . And Zeb is incapable of original thought
[/quote]

That’s not true Pitt, I was the first guy on this site to notice that you were… shall we say…a bit slow.[/quote]

You noticed no such thing , The CJS declared me incompetent because I did not mimick the nutjobery
that is required to be a card carrying member.

I kind of covered it with beans , The CSJ demagogues all posts that are out side of their approved subject matter . The MO is standard ask stupid questions until the outsider makes a semantical error and then shift focus to the error and win through changing the subject

146

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Legionary wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the extent to which Iraq War damaged our standing in the international community.[/quote]

That is actually the funniest and most inaccurate thing that you said, other than your other mistake about the Ambassador being killed in 1979.

[/quote]

Where was my mistake in regards to ambassadors killed in the line of duty? By your “over 40 years” statement you were unaware of him or the 3 others killed in that time frame. Your statement was patently false and reflects a fundamental understanding of both diplomatic history and the security issues it necessitates. I keep my mouth shut when someone talks of taxes or other economic policies. You know why? I honestly don’t know a great deal regarding these subjects.

147

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Sarah would never sign anything of this sort.

[/quote]

I sincerely hope you’re joking. Of course she would. She also has the same level of mastery of foreign policy as a box of pancake mix.[/quote]

Well I have to agree with you on that one. No way she’d be savvy enough to go on an apology tour, bow to foreign leaders, treat our enemies like our friends and our friends (Israel) like our enemies. And of course their was that brilliant piece of foreign policy…what was it called? Oh yeah…Benghazi! First time an American Ambassador was killed in over 40 years. But that was all over a video on the Internet it wasn’t terrorism according to Obama. Oh wait…he was wrong wasn’t he? But at least the press made him look like an idiot for saying such a thing. Oh wait no they didn’t either they covered for him.

[/quote]

Your post is a mirror image of Fox News talking points. Have you considered looking into these complex issues on your own instead of being spoon fed by partisan hacks? The same would apply if you watched MSNBC. Foreign Policy issues are rarely white or black, but various shades of grey. You don’t seem to understand the extent to which Iraq War damaged our standing in the international community. Heaven forbid that the president execute one of his office’s historical roles, that of chief diplomat. Bengazi? Yes, the administration could have been more forthright with the American people. Unfortunately, it was election season. I hope you were equally outraged at the strategic blunder in Iraq that claimed countless more American lives? Also, I count 4 American ambassadors that have been killed in your time-frame of 40 years. Since 1973, we have lost ambassadors Cleo A. Noel Jr, Rodger P. Davies, Francis E. Meloy Jr, and Adolph Dubs were in targeted killings.[/quote]

I stand corrected on the number of years but I am correct on the number of deaths by terrorism. Adolph Dubs was the most recent Ambassador who was killed by terrorists. The date of his death was 1979. That was 33 years ago (not 40). That’s when we had another ineffectual democratic President, Jimmy Carter. I guess the terrorists just seem to know huh? . . .

As for Obama’s foreign policy, he doesn’t have one. But you already know that you’re a sharp guy.

As for Palin, I would say in raw intelligence she is in obama’s league no question. I honestly think that Obama is far more sizzle than steak.

[/quote]

Nope. Wrong again. Cleo A. Noel was assassinated by the PLO (Black September) in 1973 during the Nixon administration. Your quick google search should have informed you of that. Also, you never said deaths by “terrorism.” Rather, you said “First time an American Ambassador was killed in over 40 years.” Regardless, how would you be correct if you weren’t aware of the deaths in the first place? [/quote]

LOL…1979 came 6 years after 1973. That means that the most recent terrorist attack to kill one of our Ambassadors was 33 years ago.

You’re going to read this and feel silly huh?

That’s okay…most people eventually end up feeling that way who try to defend Obama.[/quote]

I’m glad I could correct you after you made a declarative statement concerning a subject you are clearly unversed on. You still won’t admit your mistake but hey you wouldn’t be ZEB if you did that right?

149

[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< If Bam’s foreign policy acumen is an indicator he would surely dump the box of pancake on his head and giggle.[/quote]ROFL!!!

150

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Sarah would never sign anything of this sort.

[/quote]

I sincerely hope you’re joking. Of course she would. She also has the same level of mastery of foreign policy as a box of pancake mix.[/quote]

Well I have to agree with you on that one. No way she’d be savvy enough to go on an apology tour, bow to foreign leaders, treat our enemies like our friends and our friends (Israel) like our enemies. And of course their was that brilliant piece of foreign policy…what was it called? Oh yeah…Benghazi! First time an American Ambassador was killed in over 40 years. But that was all over a video on the Internet it wasn’t terrorism according to Obama. Oh wait…he was wrong wasn’t he? But at least the press made him look like an idiot for saying such a thing. Oh wait no they didn’t either they covered for him.

[/quote]

Your post is a mirror image of Fox News talking points. Have you considered looking into these complex issues on your own instead of being spoon fed by partisan hacks? The same would apply if you watched MSNBC. Foreign Policy issues are rarely white or black, but various shades of grey. You don’t seem to understand the extent to which Iraq War damaged our standing in the international community. Heaven forbid that the president execute one of his office’s historical roles, that of chief diplomat. Bengazi? Yes, the administration could have been more forthright with the American people. Unfortunately, it was election season. I hope you were equally outraged at the strategic blunder in Iraq that claimed countless more American lives? Also, I count 4 American ambassadors that have been killed in your time-frame of 40 years. Since 1973, we have lost ambassadors Cleo A. Noel Jr, Rodger P. Davies, Francis E. Meloy Jr, and Adolph Dubs were in targeted killings.[/quote]

You are wise beyond your years , you are called a liberal because you disagree with the Circle Jerk Society . And Zeb is incapable of original thought
[/quote]

That’s not true Pitt, I was the first guy on this site to notice that you were… shall we say…a bit slow.[/quote]

You noticed no such thing , The CJS declared me incompetent because I did not mimick the nutjobery
that is required to be a card carrying member.

I kind of covered it with beans , The CSJ demagogues all posts that are out side of their approved subject matter . The MO is standard ask stupid questions until the outsider makes a semantical error and then shift focus to the error and win through changing the subject
[/quote]

I was referring to you inability to comprehend what has been posted and then respond with an intelligent retort.

151

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Legionary wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the extent to which Iraq War damaged our standing in the international community.[/quote]

That is actually the funniest and most inaccurate thing that you said, other than your other mistake about the Ambassador being killed in 1979.

[/quote]

Where was my mistake in regards to ambassadors killed in the line of duty? By your “over 40 years” statement you were unaware of him or the 3 others killed in that time frame. Your statement was patently false and reflects a fundamental understanding of both diplomatic history and the security issues it necessitates. I keep my mouth shut when someone talks of taxes or other economic policies. You know why? I honestly don’t know a great deal regarding these subjects. [/quote]

You neglected to mention that an Ambassador was killed by TERRORISTS in 1979.

Which was only 33 years before under yet another incompetent democrat Jimmy Carter. I’ll say this much, at least people in 1980 had the intelligence to get rid of their mistakes by not reelecting incompetence. Buy of course that was before the entitlement mentality and a runaway liberal media. They at least pretended to be fair then.

152

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Sarah would never sign anything of this sort.

[/quote]

I sincerely hope you’re joking. Of course she would. She also has the same level of mastery of foreign policy as a box of pancake mix.[/quote]

Well I have to agree with you on that one. No way she’d be savvy enough to go on an apology tour, bow to foreign leaders, treat our enemies like our friends and our friends (Israel) like our enemies. And of course their was that brilliant piece of foreign policy…what was it called? Oh yeah…Benghazi! First time an American Ambassador was killed in over 40 years. But that was all over a video on the Internet it wasn’t terrorism according to Obama. Oh wait…he was wrong wasn’t he? But at least the press made him look like an idiot for saying such a thing. Oh wait no they didn’t either they covered for him.

[/quote]

Your post is a mirror image of Fox News talking points. Have you considered looking into these complex issues on your own instead of being spoon fed by partisan hacks? The same would apply if you watched MSNBC. Foreign Policy issues are rarely white or black, but various shades of grey. You don’t seem to understand the extent to which Iraq War damaged our standing in the international community. Heaven forbid that the president execute one of his office’s historical roles, that of chief diplomat. Bengazi? Yes, the administration could have been more forthright with the American people. Unfortunately, it was election season. I hope you were equally outraged at the strategic blunder in Iraq that claimed countless more American lives? Also, I count 4 American ambassadors that have been killed in your time-frame of 40 years. Since 1973, we have lost ambassadors Cleo A. Noel Jr, Rodger P. Davies, Francis E. Meloy Jr, and Adolph Dubs were in targeted killings.[/quote]

I stand corrected on the number of years but I am correct on the number of deaths by terrorism. Adolph Dubs was the most recent Ambassador who was killed by terrorists. The date of his death was 1979. That was 33 years ago (not 40). That’s when we had another ineffectual democratic President, Jimmy Carter. I guess the terrorists just seem to know huh? . . .

As for Obama’s foreign policy, he doesn’t have one. But you already know that you’re a sharp guy.

As for Palin, I would say in raw intelligence she is in obama’s league no question. I honestly think that Obama is far more sizzle than steak.

[/quote]

Nope. Wrong again. Cleo A. Noel was assassinated by the PLO (Black September) in 1973 during the Nixon administration. Your quick google search should have informed you of that. Also, you never said deaths by “terrorism.” Rather, you said “First time an American Ambassador was killed in over 40 years.” Regardless, how would you be correct if you weren’t aware of the deaths in the first place? [/quote]

LOL…1979 came 6 years after 1973. That means that the most recent terrorist attack to kill one of our Ambassadors was 33 years ago.

You’re going to read this and feel silly huh?

That’s okay…most people eventually end up feeling that way who try to defend Obama.[/quote]

I’m glad I could correct you after you made a declarative statement concerning a subject you are clearly unversed on. You still won’t admit your mistake but hey you wouldn’t be ZEB if you did that right?[/quote]

My mistake was that I said it was 40 years ago and it was only 33 years ago. Your mistake was not even knowing that terrorists killed an Ambassador, and your second mistake was including Ambassador’s that were killed by car accidents, heart attacks etc.

Just give it up, go kiss your Obama ring and call it a thread.

153

Funny, I read all of the liberals commenting on how bad sarah Palin is. Yet, on a separate thread they are all so happy that Barney Frank might become a Senator.

Currently up is down, down is up, wrong is right, and right is wrong.

Of course I understood that when a Senator of only two years with a very unremarkable record, with his college grades and IQ under lock and key, was elected President. And then after doing nothing to help the economy and ruling over the worst economy since the Great Depression was actually reelected.

If anyone thinks that the US is headed in the proper direction they are sadly, sadly mistaken.

I have no idea if Palin would be a good President. But, (not even being a Palin lover), what we have to ask ourselves is COULD SHE DO ANY WORSE THAN OBAMA?

154

just know this…She ran a large state!!! balanced the budget…obama never ran or balanced anything.
As far as dealing with international politics…Who would you rather face if you ran over a neighborhood kid or hit one, the mom or the dad? hahaha
She wouldnt bow to anyone!!!

155

[quote]steviebeast wrote:
just know this…She ran a large state!!! balanced the budget…obama never ran or balanced anything.
As far as dealing with international politics…Who would you rather face if you ran over a neighborhood kid or hit one, the mom or the dad? hahaha
She wouldnt bow to anyone!!! [/quote]

I don’t see how she could not balance a budget , they tax all the oil exported even to the lower 48 states . They have so much money the residents get a a share of profits from the tax we pay

156

[quote]steviebeast wrote:<<< She wouldnt bow to anyone!!! [/quote]This is true. Out of pure principled pigheadedness even if not out of geo political erudition. Her specie of citizen would see a situation, determine a position based on principle and go to their grave defending it as long as the situation persisted in it’s present from.

I could see her sneering at abuncha liberal congresspersons and throwing them out the oval office. “Take that crap somewhere else”.

With ZEB though, I also see Humpty Dumpty in the whitehouse before her.

157

The analogy with Humpty Dumpty is a clever one because the issue with Palin is not that she is too stupid but it is because, unlike Humpty Dumpty, her integrity is still intact.

People with integrity are not good candidates for high political office since they are hard to be “broken”:
They are not good at being manipulated and cannot be “bought”.

It is not surprising envy drives the opposition to “break” their reputation instead.

In a mature way, of course.
Otherwise, one cannot climb over integrity without appearing superior.

Image over Integrity.

We seem to have lost image of how integrity behaves.

158

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The analogy with Humpty Dumpty is a clever one because the issue with Palin is not that she is too stupid but it is because, unlike Humpty Dumpty, her integrity is still intact.

People with integrity are not good candidates for high political office since they are hard to be “broken”:
They are not good at being manipulated and cannot be “bought”.

It is not surprising envy drives the opposition to “break” their reputation instead.

In a mature way, of course.
Otherwise, one cannot climb over integrity without appearing superior.

Image over Integrity.

We seem to have lost image of how integrity behaves.[/quote]

The time is near when decency and honor will trump slippery talk and shady characters. The MSM is dying so they won’t be able to assasinate anyone anymore like they did to Palin.

The rule of the rats is ending.

159

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The analogy with Humpty Dumpty is a clever one because the issue with Palin is not that she is too stupid but it is because, unlike Humpty Dumpty, her integrity is still intact.

People with integrity are not good candidates for high political office since they are hard to be “broken”:
They are not good at being manipulated and cannot be “bought”.

It is not surprising envy drives the opposition to “break” their reputation instead.

In a mature way, of course.
Otherwise, one cannot climb over integrity without appearing superior.

Image over Integrity.

We seem to have lost image of how integrity behaves.[/quote]

If you consider campaigning for ,receiving and quitting an elected post then you are correct

160

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The analogy with Humpty Dumpty is a clever one because the issue with Palin is not that she is too stupid but it is because, unlike Humpty Dumpty, her integrity is still intact.

People with integrity are not good candidates for high political office since they are hard to be “broken”:
They are not good at being manipulated and cannot be “bought”.

It is not surprising envy drives the opposition to “break” their reputation instead.

In a mature way, of course.
Otherwise, one cannot climb over integrity without appearing superior.

Image over Integrity.

We seem to have lost image of how integrity behaves.[/quote]

Really good post Alpha!