Palin-Biden Debate

Accept your explanation - disagree with you strongly.

But thanks for a thoughtful answer.

Hoep all is well with you and yours,
BiR

 

You can say this about both tickets. They both keep saying change and don't explain what exactly that means. Palin keeps saying they're going to shake up Washington, I have no idea what that means either. The executive branch is fairly limited in what they can do at the house. The VP can break a tie in the Senate and that's about it.

You're going to see even more of this going forward. In order for Obama to win he must connect McCain and Bush together at the Republican philosophy then keep saying it's the cause of this mess. That's the only chance he has.

 

Palin did get call him on several issues that he has reversed his stance on since joining Obama. Even I-Fell made a comment when asking him a question something like this, "well, at least that WAS your stance before, but where do you stand now?"

That is the problem with Biden, and the main difference between him and palin. Biden is a professional politician, his views are subject to change hourly depending on popular opinion. Palin believes what she believes and doesnt compromise regardless of what folks think.

She is intelectually more honest in her views. Even if you dont agree with her views, you have to admit that she is truely sincere about them.

AJ

 

I know you are right, but it is getting tiresome to hear about Bush all the time. And it is kind of an insult to the intelligence of voters who are astute enough to look deeper into the issues than to just be swayed by rhetoric.

I was impressed with the way I-Fell handled the questioning. She was equally probing to both partys, and didnt seem to ask loaded partisan biased questions like some of the previous moderators have.

AJ

 

I only learned of a couple of her views. She usually spit out a sound bite ending with that's why McCain will do good a president. She is pro-life and against same sex marriage. Did she divulge any other views?

 

Ha???? you said "pro-life".....does that mean you have finally come around to the truth that unborn babies are actually alive?

AJ

 

She pegged Biden good when she said his lack of discipline. That is classic Joe.

Now I think Obama has to dump Biden and put Hillary on the ticket. I think this is a whole new ballgame after today.

 

Yes, her strong support of Isreal, her support of domestic drilling, her support of actually finishing the war in Iraq and not surrendering, her support of winning in Afghanistan, her support of denying Iran nuclear weapon capability....

Man, she said alot about her views...did you actually watch the debate?

AJ

 

But she's not against benefits for same sex partners - she mentioned the "diveristy" in her family. Not sure what she meant by that.

I think she needs a haircut! A simple, straight bob would like nice.

 

My son and I watched some of this but my son(age 26) got disgusted because Biden and Palin didn't really answer questions. He also pointed out that it was not really a debate so they shouldn't call it that.

Then he went to my computer and found an article about how the League of Women Voters withdrew support from these debates (I think in '88) because the corporate sponsorship of these "debates" made them a "charade."

My son is jaded at 26! What could I say - I really couldn't disagree with him.

 

Hey Marcia,

Earlier this week I was compelled to stop during my work day to pray for you and your ministry - that God will continue to bless you.

Hope all is well in DC,
BiR

 

Those sounded more like sound bites to me and they didn't really sound like her views. Those were the views of the McCain Palin ticket which is mostly McCain's views. You can give her credit but I don't think she gave most of that stuff much thought before getting on the ticket.

As for Iraq, exactly what objective do we achieve to win this war? She said something about a white flag, define victory in Iraq.

This is the facade, we are only there because we made the country unstable by overthrowing their government. Al Qaeda was not there when we invaded the country. They came because we were there and they will leave when we leave. They have no beef with Iraqi's. Remember, we went there because Sadam had WMD.

Even Bush has conceded that we need Iraqi people to take control of their own country. The sooner we get our troops out of Iraq the sooner we can shift them to the real war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unless you want us to start up the draft, it is imperative we get out of Iraq ASAP.

The time line will force all parties to the negotiating table with the intent of securing their nation before we leave. No matter when we leave, there will be a civil war in Iraq so we might as well get out of the middle of it and let them divide up their land.

 

Bush said this long before the war started. Victory is defined by a stable democracy in Iraq. That was always the goal and it never changed.

Again, this is one of those mind blowers ... How can you say something like this unless you were born yesterday? We have always known what the goal was. The issue of difference was 1) whether it was a goal that should be pursued, and 2) whether it was being pursued the right way.

But Biden agreed with that goal early on. Obama wasn't even on the scene when the goal was set out, and he voted to not win the war. He has changed his position on that (thankfully), but nonetheless has shown a staggering lack of judgment. If Biden wants to make this campaign about judgment as he said last night, he will lose.

 

Reasons we cant surrender in Iraq.

1. Iran will invade an unstable, defenseless Iraq. They want to control all of the regions oil because oil means power. Also the Iranians would love to use Iraq's western border for their missle system making it easier to attack Isreal.

2. The oil market would skyrocket as a result of civil war and the threat of an Iranian invasion. This is a real annoying issue with me. The liberals argue that Bush really went in to Iran to get the oil, yet we dont take any of it. The Iraqi oil should be funding the war in Iraq, but if Bush were to actually do this then the Libs would make it a political issue and place more blame on Bush. Either way Bush goes, the Libs will use his policy against him.

3. The only way to pull out and not leave the country in chaos is to divide it into 3 seperate countrys, one for Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, and this is just not practical. Before we leave, there has to be a governmnet in place that protects and represents all 3 of these groups. Before we went in, the only thing uniting these groups was the fear of Hussein. There has to be ethnic peace in Iraq or any new government wont last.

There are more reasons but these should be reason enough. Unless you would be ok with $10/gallon gasoline and are willing to risk getting into a war that is much bigger than the one we are in now, then we have to finish what we started.

AJ

 

Long before it started? There was no talk of a war in Iraq long before it started. Even when it started, the only talk of Iraq was the WMD. It's no secret Bush has received much criticism for going in without a clear plan of victory or how to get out. Those soldiers went in thinking victory was capturing Sadam.

It is mind blowing how you fail to acknowledge the war in Iraq for many years was claimed to be part of the war on terrorism. So much so to this day, many American's think we are in Iraq as a response to 9/11. You making like a stable democracy was the clear objective from "long before the war started" is the biggest dodge and the ultimate deception I've seen in a long time.

Define stable Democracy in Iraq? Explain how kicking in peoples doors in the middle of the night moves us closer to this objective? Explain how we are winning when after all these years Shiite, Sunni and Kurd leaders can't even agree on a flag much like a war making machine or how to coexist in a democracy. To this day the Kurds still won't allow the Iraqi national flag to fly in their region.

You and I don't recall a middle east that was stable and at peace. If our objective is a stable democracy in Iraq, is their any hope of ending this war? How do we know the Iraqi citizens wanted a democracy? I still say a civil war will happen not long after we leave so our "objective" as you call it is more of a dream than anything else.

 

Absolutely, this means we're stuck unless we can force Shiite, Sunni and Kurd leaders to sit down at the table of progress and get serious about the day America won't be there, sacrificing our young men and women while they argue over a flag. A time line will also encourage the citizens to voice their concerns regarding their safety the day we leave. We will not, can not, won't not, don't not plan to just walk out that country on a given day. What Obama has said he will do is slowly withdraw our troops over a set period of time and as we leave it will force the people of Iraq to step up to the plate and defend themselves. As these men and women come forward, we will still be there to train, equip and prepare them to take on their adversaries.

This thing about throwing up the white flag is the same kind of scare tactic as the recent "the world is going to end" presentation of the economic crises. McCain is playing on peoples fears to support his position on the war in Iraq. Bush has all be come out and acknowledged Obama is partially correct because many of the things Obama has been calling for are currently happening in Iraq today. Just like Obama won't admit the surge did anything McCain won't admit Obama was right.

The facts are we need THEM to take on their adversaries so our troops can be used to defend America and to defend America's interest. We also need troops to go to where the terrorist live which is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need them out of Iraq. No one ever said the word surrender... There is a big difference between surrender and a plan for leaving.

 

I didn't realize that GW Bush was allowed to fire all 9 Supreme Court Justices and appoint 9 new ones. Wow, maybe he really is the tyrant the left makes him out to be.

 

While this seems silly we need to look back to our own history and take a serious look at some of the squabbles our founders engaged in while working to establish this country. Iraq is doing well. Nothing they are doing is out of the norm in re-establishing a country.

So the Democratic talking points say. But this rhetoric is really just feeding the far left wing base that is anti-war and has no real concern for Iraq in mind. We do not know and cannot say that any artificial time line will be effective in this way. What we do know is that it broadcasts to the enemy what we are doing. And liberals always hold their politics over the safety of the troops. And this is exactly what a time line does.

This thing about throwing up the white flag is the same kind of scare tactic as the recent "the world is going to end" presentation of the economic crises. McCain is playing on peoples fears to support his position on the war in Iraq. Bush has all be come out and acknowledged Obama is partially correct because many of the things Obama has been calling for are currently happening in Iraq today. Just like Obama won't admit the surge did anything McCain won't admit Obama was right.

More talking points. Do you get them in an email? The leaders of Iraq have themselves said the front of this battle was Iraq. Our ground commanders has said the same thing. It is completely false that not setting a date to leave is not a plan. The credible plan is as they are ready we turn over control. No fabricated time line makes anyone ready. Only time and training. Leaving on fabricated time lines before the Iraqi's are ready is complete surrender.

 

I would have thought the relative nature of "long before" would have been obvious. But it goes to show that there are not limits to the ways that biased people can misread things. The point is that from day one of the discussion of a war in Iraq (during the Clinton administration) regime change was the goal. When Bush started talking about it, the goal was the elimination of WMDs, and regime change to a stable democratic government.

And it's no secret that people are dishonest and stupid. There is no question that the strategy was not altogether clear. But the goal was.

It is. It is amazing that you deny it. If you don't think IEDs and blown up buses are terrorism, then I guess we have different views of terrorism.

As I say, people are stupid.

It is unusual to hear honesty described as a dodge and a deception. I generally don't characterize it that way, but again we have different standards about truth and honesty. I believe in it, no matter which way it cuts. I don't play politics with truth. If you didn't know that the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq was a goal before the war started, then you are simply uninformed, which is a reminder to stop talking when you don't know what you are talking about.

Google is your friend. From google, you can find that the goal was to establish a stable democratic government in Iraq. It is inexcusable for you to act like you know what you are talking about when you don't.

Here is proof: http://paulcarrington.com/Exporting Democracy to Iiraq.htm

A democratic self-government that is safe from terrorist overthrow.

By rooting out criminal terrorist cowards who plant IEDs and blow up cars to kill bystanding civilians. Are you against that?

But there has been progress as it evident.

Of course there is. But not so long as there is a lack of freedom loving people who will bail out of the task.

They said so.

Perhaps you are wrong. Given your lack of knowledge of events, it is difficult to take your judgment as legitimate here. You may be right, but you may not be.

 

You mean being real about who she is?