|
Palin struggles (badly) in Couric interview.. (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
lol then you loose all rights to complain! |
Heh, absolute ing bull. You'll be the one voting the next douche bag in to office, you deal with the consequences. You have no right to complain about the they are responsible for, because of your support. You voted the dick head in, you're responsible for what he does. So you, kindly shut the up... especially if there's more "blowback" and another attack on American soil. I used to think you were more straight forwards and less full of than most people... you're not terribly different though, the same scared less disingenuous suburban . Don't forget Messiah Obama's relations with AIPAC and his crypo-zioish policies and comments. Voting for a black dude doesn't make you any less racist, dip. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
You won't see much. The Mccain campaign met with the commission on presidential debates and insisted on a change in the debate format. Unlike the Presidential debate, the VP's won't be having a "conversational" style debate where they get to ask each other questions. It will be the traditional type where the moderator asks questions and they get to give 60 second answers, 30 second rebuttles, etc. Palin will probably have a big pile of good soundbyte answers to give, while she would have been humiliated in a serious discussion format.
I think the Obama campaign should have fought these changes but they decided not to...a damn shame. It would have been fun to watch a real debate between them. |
Thats a shame indeed.I hate those controlled type of debates.I really wanted to see those two going at it.Palin must be very happy about this.:o |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Heh, absolute ing bull. You'll be the one voting the next douche bag in to office, you deal with the consequences. You have no right to complain about the they are responsible for, because of your support. You voted the dick head in, you're responsible for what he does. So you, kindly shut the up... especially if there's more "blowback" and another attack on American soil. I used to think you were more straight forwards and less full of than most people... you're not terribly different though, the same scared less disingenuous suburban . Don't forget Messiah Obama's relations with AIPAC and his crypo-zioish policies and comments. Voting for a black dude doesn't make you any less racist, dip. |
:rolleyes:
You don't vote so you shut that ing pie hole. You have no ground to stand on lil man, NONE!!
Take your 3 years of High School Level debate and go back to your CT threads...
what a joke, bitch boy claims to be such a learned individual and really is a stupid ing non votin dumpster c*nt |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Heh, absolute ing bull. You'll be the one voting the next douche bag in to office, you deal with the consequences. You have no right to complain about the they are responsible for, because of your support. You voted the dick head in, you're responsible for what he does. So you, kindly shut the up... especially if there's more "blowback" and another attack on American soil. I used to think you were more straight forwards and less full of than most people... you're not terribly different though, the same scared less disingenuous suburban . Don't forget Messiah Obama's relations with AIPAC and his crypo-zioish policies and comments. Voting for a black dude doesn't make you any less racist, dip. |
Hey cockmunch, it was a poor choice of words for me to phrase it like that when tards like you are standing by to take everything at face value within a moments notice. ("Ooo! Ooo! I can say something and a chance to fling insults!") That particular discussion was going to take a few posts to hash out both Shakka's and my positions. I do agree endorsing a candidate equates to endorsing their flaws and refusing endorsement does not forfeit any particular rights. I understand there are a lot of reasons anyone could bring up on why to not pick Obama. Shakka though offered only two, Ayers and "liberal stances." This was the premise of my flimsy reasons argument covered in later posts that you no doubt skipped over in between your jerkoff strokes to animal porn. He might bring up more reasons, that remains to be seen, not that it would matter at this point because in that particular discussion I've lost interest much like the women you take to bed after dropping your pants.
Nevertheless I don't feel I owe you an explanation any more than I do the loogie I just hacked up and spit in your metaphorical direction, so I'll stop there on that point. As to your opinion of me I couldn't particularly care less. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Just because I said I didn't support anybody doesn't mean I don't plan on voting. I just haven't decided who is going to be so lucky as to get my world changing vote!
|
+1
I am kind of leaning toward Obama. The conservative lad in me really wanted a GOP choice, but McCain has totally lost it in the last few months...
but I think I will wait for the head to head debates to decide...if they happen |
|
|
| LazFX |
Naive
| quote: | In her interview with Katie Couric Sarah Palin essentially called Henry Kissinger naive and also proved that she just hasn't done her homework.
Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?
Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment.
Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger ...
Palin: It's dangerous.
Couric: ... is naïve for supporting that?
Palin: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of diplomacy.
Actually. That's exactly Henry Kissinger's position. And Couric even went ahead and confirmed it with Kissinger after the interview. Here is what Kissinger said just last week at a forum of five secretaries of state.
"I'm in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one -- (unintelligible) -- of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East -- of a stable Middle East and our notion of nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it."
It's not only Kissinger's position. It is James Baker and Colin Powell's position as well. Here is what Powell said at the event.
Powell: "we should start to talk to them. Don't wait for a letter coming from them. Start discussion. We've been talking to them up through 2003." Asked whether we should "take the initiative?" Powell responded, "Yeah. We shouldn't we? What are we afraid of? We did."
But who cares what Kissinger, Powell and Baker think. Sarah Palin is running the country now...
SOURCE
|
|
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
Naive |
She is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that man. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
haha....no i got the sarcasm, i was thrown of by the "all true then?" I had no idea what that meant. |
just.
stop.
talking.
please. :nervous: |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Hey cockmunch, it was a poor choice of words for me to phrase it like that when tards like you are standing by to take everything at face value within a moments notice. ("Ooo! Ooo! I can say something and a chance to fling insults!") That particular discussion was going to take a few posts to hash out both Shakka's and my positions. I do agree endorsing a candidate equates to endorsing their flaws and refusing endorsement does not forfeit any particular rights. I understand there are a lot of reasons anyone could bring up on why to not pick Obama. Shakka though offered only two, Ayers and "liberal stances." This was the premise of my flimsy reasons argument covered in later posts that you no doubt skipped over in between your jerkoff strokes to animal porn. He might bring up more reasons, that remains to be seen, not that it would matter at this point because in that particular discussion I've lost interest much like the women you take to bed after dropping your pants.
Nevertheless I don't feel I owe you an explanation any more than I do the loogie I just hacked up and spit in your metaphorical direction, so I'll stop there on that point. As to your opinion of me I couldn't particularly care less. |
He sounded pretty mean the other day when he branded me a "typical liberal".. who knows what he wants or thinks?
Whatever suits the moment.
Anyway people, don't be a mean drunk !
:D |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
+1
I am kind of leaning toward Obama. The conservative lad in me really wanted a GOP choice, but McCain has totally lost it in the last few months...
but I think I will wait for the head to head debates to decide...if they happen |
are you kidding me laz? :( why on earth would you ever consider returning the party that gave us the last 8 years? :conf: man, that boggles my mind.
if nothing else, the dishonesty with which the executive has conducted itself is despicable. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
are you kidding me laz? :( why on earth would you ever consider returning the party that gave us the last 8 years? :conf: man, that boggles my mind.
if nothing else, the dishonesty with which the executive has conducted itself is despicable. |
"Us?" Don't you pride yourself on being a non-American/outsider looking in? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Hey cockmunch, it was a poor choice of words for me to phrase it like that when tards like you are standing by to take everything at face value within a moments notice. ("Ooo! Ooo! I can say something and a chance to fling insults!") That particular discussion was going to take a few posts to hash out both Shakka's and my positions. I do agree endorsing a candidate equates to endorsing their flaws and refusing endorsement does not forfeit any particular rights. I understand there are a lot of reasons anyone could bring up on why to not pick Obama. Shakka though offered only two, Ayers and "liberal stances." This was the premise of my flimsy reasons argument covered in later posts that you no doubt skipped over in between your jerkoff strokes to animal porn. He might bring up more reasons, that remains to be seen, not that it would matter at this point because in that particular discussion I've lost interest much like the women you take to bed after dropping your pants.
Nevertheless I don't feel I owe you an explanation any more than I do the loogie I just hacked up and spit in your metaphorical direction, so I'll stop there on that point. As to your opinion of me I couldn't particularly care less. |
Yeah, which is why you dignified it with a response, while simultaneously admitting the absurdity of your comment and accusation of racism towards Shakka. Lame. |
|
|
|
|
