McCain picks woman for VP slot

[jefferiah]

You mean that good old police and intelligence work would not have worked? That there is no way that the police could have got a warrant using normal procedures based on what they knew?

I know I have been told this is not the proper thread to discuss this, but I'd just like to answer this question. The answer simply is no. Because the good old police did not know anything. You can't get a warrant when you do not know what it is or who you are looking for in the first place. The bridge plot was discovered because wiretaps revealed a conversation in Arabic with the phrase "Brooklyn Bridge" repeated over and over.

They do not just listen in on individual conversations. A computer trolls through billions of conversations and is programmed to pick up certain red flag phrases. They do not know what they are looking for or who they are looking for. These are both necessary conditions in being granted a warrant.

The point of the taps is not to get enough information for a conviction. Warrantless taps could not be used to identify, arrest, or convict Faris in this case. The point is to find out about the plot itself, so you can foil it.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[Argus]

Uhhh....looky here...I can make a very good case for nearly any part of Canada being just about as challenging as "AssHat Alaska", yet there seems to be no shortage of would be PMs and MPs.

None with her limited experience.

There are several MALE presidents with no more experience than Palin, and at least one other MALE candidate equally "unqualified".

There has not been a vice presidential or presidential candidate in modern times whose qualifications were as weak as Palin. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ideologically driven fool.

[Argus]

Spiro Agnew helped get Richard Nixon elected.

Gerald Ford became president. If gerald Ford can be a decent president, almost anybody can be a decent president.

Ford had multiple degrees and saw distinguished service in his country's military prior to 24 years as a congressman. I won't say he was the most brilliant or capable president the US has ever had but what exactly about him causes you to think that if he could do it anyone could do it?

Arh=gus, you are making far too much of this. The US Constitution is designed in such a way that it can easily survive a Vice-President Palin.

I'm not worried about Vice-president Palin. I'm worried about President Palin. McCain is 73. The average life span of American white males is 75.

[bush_cheney2004]

None with her limited experience.

OK....I guess she is just an American. Has none of the wide "Made in Canada" experience so common in all MPs and PMs.

There has not been a vice presidential or presidential candidate in modern times whose qualifications were as weak as Palin. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ideologically driven fool.

Nonsense...have you ever seen a real US federal election ballot? Do you have any idea how many political parties nominate candidates for president and vice president? Methinks somebody else is ideologically driven by testes.

Edited September 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[moderateamericain]

Ford had multiple degrees and saw distinguished service in his country's military prior to 24 years as a congressman. I won't say he was the most brilliant or capable president the US has ever had but what exactly about him causes you to think that if he could do it anyone could do it?

I'm not worried about Vice-president Palin. I'm worried about President Palin. McCain is 73. The average life span of American white males is 75.

Why are you worried about President Palin?

[Argus]

OK....I guess she is just an American. Has none of the wide "Made in Canada" experience so common in all MPs and PMs.

She would make an okay candidate for a backbench MP, but would not be considered for the leadership of a major party.

Nonsense...have you ever seen a real US federal election ballot? Do you have any idea how many political parties nominate candidates for president and vice president?

We're talking about the major parties here, not some nothing group of kooks with zero chance of election.

Methinks somebody else is ideologically driven by testes.

Methinks your continued accusations of sexism are ludicrous and a strong indication of your own massive sexism

[bush_cheney2004]

She would make an okay candidate for a backbench MP, but would not be considered for the leadership of a major party.

Sorry, but you just let her in the tent...so much for your argument about any MP/PM.

We're talking about the major parties here, not some nothing group of kooks with zero chance of election.

Oh, you mean like Ross Perot and Admiral Stockdale.....go check the vote count in 1992.

Methinks your continued accusations of sexism are ludicrous and a strong indication of your own massive sexism

Translation.....I know you are but what am I.

Edited September 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Shakeyhands]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/61410aa4ff

[Guest American Woman]

I find Canadien's comment kinda weird. It's like he is getting defensive over his criticism of Palin over nothing (and so are you). Because the thing is American Woman, no one actually came after him very hard over criticizing Palin.

I see. No one came after him "very hard." They just came after him. So it's no big deal. Got'cha.

No one came after him at all. No one is calling him out on anything.

Wrong.

It's like he is overreacting to nothing.

So McCain didn't criticize Obama for that? The media made it up?

When I did the same thing as Canadien ( sarcastically apologizing for calling Barack Barry), I think I had more of a reason than he did. I called Obama Barry (ooooooooooooooo) and you said I had no respect and that it showed my opinions on him are invalid, blah blah blah.

Why don't you make something else up while you're "blah blah blah-ing?" I never so much as insinuated that your disrespect for Obama "showed [your] opinions on him are invalid." I said he doesn't go by Barry, and he doesn't. The rest of your post is pure fabrication.

Edited September 12, 2008 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

And for the record, Obama's name is Barack, not Barry. Your disrespect says nothing about him and everything about you.

It's not word for word no, but I think its a bit closer to how I framed it, than you just did. My disrespect for Barry says nothing about him and everything about me. So yeah I guess it doesn't say something about my opinions necessarily but about my character overall. Oh well....

Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

It's not word for word no, but I think its a bit closer to how I framed it, than you just did. My disrespect for Barry says nothing about him and everything about me. So yeah I guess it doesn't say something about my opinions necessarily but about my character overall. Oh well....

Yep. You got it right that time. I said absolutely nothing about your opinions being invalid. Now here's a question. If you think a politician is lacking character because of something he said or did, does that make all of his opinions invalid in your mind? But I never said anything about your "character," either.

So definitely not "word for word." Not even in the ballpark. Pure fabrication, as I said.

Now let's get back to Obama and the crocodile tears that McCain and Palin are crying over his comment:

The McCain-Palin campaign called the comments "offensive and disgraceful" and demanded an apology. The Obama camp said the remark was not a dig at Mrs Palin and accused the Republicans of a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card".

There we have it. "Offensive and disgraceful." But it gets better:

Asked how anyone could be sure the comment was directed personally at Mrs Palin, a McCain campaign spokeswoman said: "She's the only one of the four - the presidential and vice presidential candidates - who wears lipstick".

What a moronic deduction! "she's the only one who wears lipstick." Unbelievable. Because here's the bottom line:

Other reports quote Senator McCain as using the same phrase about Hillary Clinton's health plan last year. link

What a bunch of wusses...

Edited September 12, 2008 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

What a moronic deduction! "she's the only one who wears lipstick." Unbelievable. Because here's the bottom line:

What a bunch of wusses...

Mmmm I think I said that Obama did not mean it as an insult already. But it is on another thread. Actually I said it in agreement with you. And that I thought it was not offensive, and who the hell cares. So I don't understand where you are going.

That said, Obama has already played the race card.

[BubberMiley]

Palin's interview with Charles Gibson was hilarious. I like the blank look she gave when asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. She clearly didn't have a clue what he was talking about. She rambled on about Bush's "world view" until Gibson finally had to stop her and explain what the Bush Doctrine was.

[jefferiah]

Yep. You got it right that time. I said absolutely nothing about your opinions being invalid. Now here's a question. If you think a politician is lacking character because of something he said or did, does that make all of his opinions invalid in your mind? But I never said anything about your "character," either.

So definitely not "word for word." Not even in the ballpark. Pure fabrication, as I said.

No, it was not a fabrication. And you know that. You asserted a moment ago that you merely told me his name was Barack, and uttered nothing about disrespect or about me. But I clearly showed that you did. And I made a mistake about the nature of the insult. Sorry if my memory was slightly off. You did not say my opinions were invalid, but that it obviously showed something about my character that I would deign to call him Barry. I am not offended over this. Just that you keep calling out LIES LIES, fabrications! as if its some big attempt to slander you.

[Guest American Woman]

Palin's interview with Charles Gibson was hilarious. I like the blank look she gave when asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. She clearly didn't have a clue what he was talking about. She rambled on about Bush's "world view" until Gibson finally had to stop her and explain what the Bush Doctrine was.

it is on YouTube.

Here's a write up about it:

....on the seventh anniversary of Sept. 11, [Palin] appeared entirely unfamiliar with the Bush Doctrine, the central foreign policy tenant of the current administration, which includes the right to wage preventative war strikes in the wake of those terrorist attacks.

She's clearly clueless.

[jefferiah]

it is on YouTube.

Here's a write up about it:

....on the seventh anniversary of Sept. 11, [Palin] appeared entirely unfamiliar with the Bush Doctrine, the central foreign policy tenant of the current administration, which includes the right to wage preventative war strikes in the wake of those terrorist attacks.

She's clearly clueless.

Gosh, thats kinda like someone saying there are 57 states in the union. Now who said that again??? And was he at the top or bottom of his ticket?

Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Gosh, thats kinda like someone saying there are 57 states in the union. Now who said that again??? And was he at the top or bottom of his ticket?

Yes, because misspeaking and being totally clueless about the Bush Doctrine are exactly the same thing.

Unless you want me to trot out all the "Bushisms," such as "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our people.. and neither do we," we'll consider your lame attempt at a diversion unsuccessful and leave it at that. Fair enough?

And for the record, being at the "top" or "bottom" of the ticket doesn't dismiss pure ignorance. You do realize VP's could, and have, become president, right?

I have to say, she comes across even more stupid clueless than I would have ever thought. Now that she's actually talking about the issues, people have got to figure out how utterly unqualified she is.

Edited September 12, 2008 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

Yes, because misspeaking and being totally clueless about the Bush Doctrine are exactly the same thing.

And what is the Bush Doctrine pray tell. Is it an official doctrine? Does it exist?

[jefferiah]

"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

"In what respect, Charlie?"

"The Bush -- well, what do you interpret it to be?"

"His world view?"

"No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war."

"I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership -- and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."

"The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense; that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/...in4442963.shtml

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.......

Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Maybe we should be asking if Charles Gibson knows what he is talking about.

Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah

[Shady]

And for the record, Obama's name is Barack, not Barry. Your disrespect says nothing about him and everything about you.

Well then, what does it say about the group of you, who've disrespected Sarah Palin by much more then just mispronouncing her name? Shall I link to the vagina comment? Do us all a huge favour, and try and be at least a little consistent with your "outrage".

[August1991]

If someone asked me what the Bush Doctrine is, I wouldn't know either. But then, I'm not running for VP.

And let's be honest. Four weeks ago, Palin wasn't running for VP either.

Frankly, if teh Dems are going to knock down Palin, they are going to have some other technique than treating her like a student, asking an exam question and then crowing when she doesn't get it. That will just remind everyone of the smartie pants in school.

I think Palin has the right idea here:

"But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual, and somebody's big fat resume that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state."

[Guest American Woman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/...in4442963.shtml

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.......

Too funny. You left the first line of the article you cited out:

"I watched the first clip of Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson, and to me, the most striking part was her complete inability to answer the question: 'Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?'"

[jefferiah]

Too funny. You left the first line of the article you cited out:

"I watched the first clip of Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson, and to me, the most striking part was her complete inability to answer the question: 'Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?'"

uh yeah.... So whats your point. It was not relevant to my argument. I wanted to quote the text of the interview. And Charles Gibson apparently had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was when he says it was enunciated in 2002. It was not enunciated, it was not enacted, it is nothing but a popular term used to describe a broad range of Bush foreign policies. So thus, if you were asked this question, you would have no choice but to ask what the person means.

Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah

[CANADIEN]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Charlie Gibson is not running for VP of the United States. Sarah Palin is. the term "Bush doctrine" has been used often and should be known well enough by at least the Republican campaign handlers briefing her on issues that she should have at least managed something more than a bland stare.

As for the "she wasn't running one month ago" argument.. the Democratic VP candidate wasn't either.