Stephen Best
-
Posts
239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Stephen Best
-
-
OMG...this is the best....a self confirming "smug and superior" post.
Let's just cut to the chase....the Republicans (an American political party) have nominated their candidates.
Is that OK with you, or not?
There you go again, another "smug and superior" whine. What's it about those two words that so frightens you? What are you so insecure about?
Why are you here on Mapleleafweb? It's a Canadian forum. And whenever we talk about American politics you get all rattled and upset and defensive. You could just go away. What's it to you what Canadians discuss or think about? Do you think America is so weak she needs you to defend her from Canadians? You should see what your fellow Americans (I assume you're American) are saying about Americans on The Well or over at Volconvo.com.
-
Ding Ding....now you are catching on. It's about winning, and I don't mean winning the We're-So-Smug-And-Superior Award.
What's this obsession you have "smug" and "superiority"? Did something or someone damage your self-respect or sense of self worth as a child? If you want examples of smugness and self-righteous superiority, review your posts. You can confine yourself to thoughtful, well-informed comments, if you just try.
-
Bush's presidency is for another thread.
Then perhaps you can avoid making ludicrous and patently absurd assertions that you're not prepared--and probably not able--to defend with anything other than uninformed, uncritical opinion.
-
the tpoic is pretty straightforward. Palin answers questions better than hillary and has more executive experience than barack obama.
next.
Palin does not answer questions better than Hillary Clinton. If you think that you're hard of hearing and have poor sight.
Also, the "executive experience" card is interesting. What is this executive experience you speak of and what evidence do you have that this executive experience is an indicator of how well a person would serve in high office. The Rabid Right just makes things up, and expects the rest of us to accept their pronouncements.
Define executive experience, and demonstrate that it's important to have in order to be a Vice President or President. Also tell me if it's executive experience that's important or executive skill. A person can have one without necessarily the other.
-
Bush never comes off well but he's been a fantastic president.
Most Americans, and most historians would not agree. By what criteria, what standard, do you apply the adjective "fantastic" to President Bush?
-
Definitive post on the "Bush Doctrine gotcha"
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OD...GQzZjg0MzYyZjk=
Useful link, Sulaco. But it doesn't change the facts on the ground. Palin didn't know what Gibson was talking about, any aspect of what he was talking about. It's one thing for Gibson's interpretation to be hazy on the evolution of the Bush Doctrine, but not Palin's. She could be President. Gibson won't be President.
As you can see
, Sarah Palin does not understand a key aspect of the Bush Doctrine which is "the controversial policy of preventive war, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent." It's not about a strike on the US being imminent as Palin believes; that's the issue. Palin didn't understand that and that is what the controversy over the Bush Doctrine is about. -
Again, Palin's response was pefectly appropriate diplo-speak.
Her response was not appropriate. She should have said, "Mr. Gibson, this venue is not the place for someone who may be the next Vice President of the United States to discuss our relationship with other countries. However, you can be assured that the approach I take will by guided by President McCain and what is best for our country's security and vital interests." That's the correct answer, Sulaco.
-
No, but apparently you know all the world's diplomats, and what they understand about the so called "Bush Doctrine".
Do I know all the world's diplomats? Does anyone? Why do you make such silly comments? But what some of us know are the general qualifications necessary to be a diplomat, which is a senior public service position in all governments. Qualifications include a university degree, usually post graduate, and years of experience in the foreign service. To assume, as you do, that the majority of such people would not be aware of the Bush Doctrine and its intricacies and implications is simply ludicrous. Belabor the point if you will. Take the last word.
-
Cry me a river...She was one of the reasons for wide screen TV.
Now you are backpedaling to just leaders? What about the "diplomats"? Please give us more hyperbole!
That's his choice...and ours...but most definitely not yours.
As I say, your comments about Ivins reveal much about your character.
As for the Bush Doctrine and whether or not the diplomats of other countries would or would not be aware of it, your position implies that professional diplomats would not be aware the United States' security strategy. Interesting position. Do you know many diplomats? Read many policy publications? Hold the belief if you like. It is, of course, nonsense on the face of it. If you need an explanation as to why it's nonsense, it's unlikely you'd understand the explanation of the obvious.
-
Good...she was irritating anyway.
You have no idea what all the "world's leaders" and diplomats are aware of WRT the "Bush Doctrine"....that's a gross generalization.
Ignorance may not be a qualification, but it also is not a disqualification. This is politics...not neurosurgery.
It says volumes about the character of someone who thinks the untimely death of person like Molly Ivins is a "good" thing--whether you agree with her politics or not.
You can be assured that all world leaders know exactly what the Bush Doctrine is, and its implications for their nations--getting attacked by the US without provocation. It is foolish in the extreme, even delusional, to suggest otherwise.
As for "Ignorance may not be a qualification, but it also is not a disqualification" even John McCain when he was seeking the Republican nomination implied that experiences as a mayor or a governor were insufficient for high office. McCain said, "I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism. I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time." He was speaking about Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Here's the clip.
If Romney and Giuliani weren't ready for high office, how is it possible that Palin is? Of course, the answer is she's not. McCain could have chosen someone who was ready for high office. But, he chose not to--putting his country at risk to win an election.
-
I personally think McCain has struck gold, which will propel him to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
You may well be right. For many Americans, willful ignorance and stunning stupidity is viewed as an asset in a Presidential candidate. It make them feel he's more like them. Which is probably true. Would I was making a joke rather than an observation.
-
Funnier still, the very same people who compared President Bush to a "moron" or "shrub" now rise to defend the intricacies and paramount place in history for his "Doctrine", and that any suitable candidate surely would know of such things. They needed to get something out of the interview to hang on Governor Palin....OK...but is that all they have? Partisanship is a two way street.
I believe the name "Shrub" was coined by the late Molly Ivins, the Texas writer.
At any rate, the Bush Doctrine, notwithstanding if someone approves or disapproves of it, has, in case you didn't notice, a "paramount place in history". A candidate who was suitable for the VP slot would not only be aware of the Bush Doctrine, but also of its intricacies. Why? Because other world leaders, their ministers, and diplomats with whom the VP will engage are acutely aware of the doctrine.
It is infinitely beyond ludicrous to suggest that ignorance is a qualification for high office.
-
I don't think the Bush Doctrine matters.
I understand that you don't think an understanding of the Bush Doctrine matters. What matters is Sarah Palin's demonstrated ignorance of fundamental foreign policy issues, including the Bush Doctrine, and what that ignorance says about her, and McCain's decision to choose her, someone so ill-prepared.
If you want to change the subject to Obama and his security bona fides, start another thread. It's truly annoying when someone unable to refute an argument takes the specious route and hides behind another issue.
-
Once again, the Bush Doctrine is nothing. Who says that one needs to know what you or someone else means by the Bush Doctrine in order to be Vice President? It is not a policy, it not something which was enacted, it is a political buzz word.
In office, no one is going to say "Sarah should we employ the Bush Doctrine?"
They will ask "Should we strike this nation which harbors terrorists?" (one definition)
"Should we wage preventative war against a nation planning to acquire nuclear weapons?" (another)
Yes, jefferiah, a fundamental ignorance of the foundation of the Bush regime's much discussed foreign policy should be viewed as a qualification to be the next Vice President or President of the United States. In your and the Rabid Right's Topsy Turvey, Black is White world, ignorance of the basics is now evidence of competence. I cannot imagine a more nonsensical--and dangerous--view. Moreover, it is insidiously hypocritical. If Joe Biden or Barack Obama went blank on a question so basic as their views of the Bush Doctrine, the Rabid Right would be howling to the ramparts about their competence to lead and keep America safe. Limbaugh would be frothing.
I know you hate all things Left, and worship all things Right, but is your hate and love so all consuming and blinding that you would defer to them rather than the security and prosperity of your country?
-
By asking what do you interpret it to be, she responded the right way. The Bush Doctrine is not something that was enunciated or enacted nor does it exist except as a collective term to describe Bush policies. Pundits use the term pretty liberally, thus.......
The fact is, jefferiah, no one who was qualified to be the Vice President of the United States would not fully understand what was meant by "the Bush Doctrine". She did not respond "the right way." She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. That was obvious.
Isn't it ironic that on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks the vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party and John McCain--the party and candidate who claim they will keep America safe--demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of the very foreign policy that came out of the September 11 attacks. Says much about McCain's and the Republicans' claims about putting country before winning elections, don't you think?
The most astute and incisive political commentary I've heard to date about Sarah Palin came from that great Canadian thinker, Pam Anderson, who said "I can't stand her. She can suck it!"
-
Is my name argus? i think the green party is irrelevant regardless
My apologies, blueblood. Of course you're not argus.
-
I don't think Liberal or NDP supporters are idiots, they vote for the party that best supports their interests. Idiots are idiots of all stripes doesn't matter which way they vote.
Perhaps I misunderstood. Did you not imply that the over 800,000 people who vote Green are idiots when you wrote, "I'm suggesting anyone who would vote for this shrill, rich girl turned lifelong, professional activist and protestor is an idiot."
As an aside, you do know that Stephen Harper was a professional activist as President of the National Citizens Coalition.
-
40% of canadians are idiots?
Sad, don't you think? But look on the bright side; 60% aren't.
-
I'm suggesting anyone who would vote for this shrill, rich girl turned lifelong, professional activist and protestor is an idiot.
Argus, no doubt there will be many idiots voting in the election. That's one of the downsides of democracy. And something Harper is counting on to win a majority.
-
It's irrelevant that their only MP is a guy who the Liberals threw out of their party for ethics violations?
For the purposes of which leaders qualify for the televised debate, yes. If ethics had anything to do with it, Harper wouldn't be allowed on the stage.
-
I don't have a problem with that at all.
Others hold the view that in a democratic society respecting differing political views and making them available to the voter for consideration is reasonable. Are you suggesting that because you are comfortable being contemptuous of others, we should all be?
-
Argus, this point has been raised in a number of threads. Someone cries "Hey, the Greens deserve this or that because they have an MP!"
Someone else points out that the MP in question was never elected as a Green but merely switched parties.
Then there's a deafening silence.
Have you seen anything by these Green supporters that answers the fact that they still haven't ELECTED an MP?
I haven't.
Actually, Wild Bill, I did respond as did others, making the point that how the Greens acquired an MP is irrelevant. It would seem that Dion, Harper, Layton, Duceppe, and the broadcast consortium agree with me. Their agreement, which is the only one that matters, decides the issue. You may not agree with their decision, but that's life.
-
May is not a memeber of the religious right, she is a member of the religious left.
Remember that Canadian 'Christian' that the Americans and Bristish rescued in Iraq?
The terrorists killed his compatriot from Britain (beheaded him in the next room) and after he was rescued he blamed his rescuers for being kidnapped int he first place? Well that is the religious left and while May may (no pun intended) not be that far left, that is her 'side'.
White Doors, are you condemning or congratulating the person of the "religious left" you're writing about above? It's not clear from your post.
-
It is interesting that all the leaders have now agreed to not block May's participation in the televised leaders' debates. What is more interesting is that it was Dion who led the way.
McCain picks woman for VP slot
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
There you go again, obsessing over "smug" and "self righteous".
You are "the reality of raw American economic and political power"? Really? Talk about smug and self-righteous. Well, at any rate, I'm glad we Canadians can, at least, entertain one American.
And, as for me being a "rookie", just goes to show that experience is no indicator of competence?