I will take your word on it. I do, however, see way to many that hate him personally.

I will take your word on it. I do, however, see way to many that hate him personally.

All I can do is judge Obama on second hand information about his record and his vision. Whether he is sincerely believes that he is working to drag this country leftward for the good of all Americans or not makes no difference to me. The damage will be the same regardless of his intentions.

 

IMO, Obama is like a man who shows you a gun and tells you that he will return to rob you the following day. You have a choice of taking the threat seriously or convincing yourself that the gun was not real and that he is more likely to rob one of your wealthier neighbors anyway. I refuse to be one of Obama's willing victims.

I would pay good money to hear Sarah Palin talk at length about issues I value in an executive. If she could, she would be. However, it appears her opinion is limited to demagoguery and cliches.

 

Why waste your money? :laugh:

Interesting how Joe Biden has disappeared since his $150,000 remarks... :lol:

Impressed with Palin's world view? We can see Russia from Alaska that's a pretty good view.

Katie Couric I will give you. The Bush Doctrine was an attempt of "gotcha." Bush himself doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. :lol:

 

Katie threw that out there as a "gotcha" . There is no definition out there of what "Bush Doctrine" is.

She should have had Katie explain herself first, then see who looks like the dummy.:jump:

Impressed with Palin's world view? We can see Russia from Alaska that's a pretty good view.

 

Obama could see Canada from The Sears Tower.

I don't personally think she's a Whack Job. I do think she's ambitious, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do not think she's suitable at this time for the office for which she's running...but again, I don't think she's a whack job. Diva? I have no idea. It's hard for me to imagine her as a Diva, but on the other hand, I think the term Diva is more applicable to entertainers and such who make unreasonable demands.

Impressed with Palin's world view? We can see Russia from Alaska that's a pretty good view.

 

That's what I'm saying. What "world view"? She seems about as ignorant about world politics and foreign policy as the insular, average American.

 

I would challenge anyone to make the case for how Palin's "world view" differs from George W. Bush's.

Katie threw that out there as a "gotcha" . There is no definition out there of what "Bush Doctrine" is.

She should have had Katie explain herself first, then see who looks like the dummy.:jump:

 

 

First of all, it wasn't Katie Couric (NBC) who asked the Bush Doctrine question. It was Charles Gibson (ABC). Second, when Gibson asked the question, he stated that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. This was enough information for her to answer the question without ambiguity.

 

This was only a "gotcha" question because Palin wasn't apparently familiar enough with Bush's foreign policy positions to answer it.

I would challenge anyone to make the case for how Palin's "world view" differs from George W. Bush's.

You may actually have a point there.

 

Because of Bush, we're not very popular with terrorists and tin pot dictators wanting a bigger footprint on the world stage.

 

Because of Bush, we've not had one terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01.

 

Because of Bush, we don't bow on the steps of the U.N.

 

Because of Bush, otherwise healthy infants are not partially born only to have a horrendous proceedure performed to kill them before they legally draw their first breath.

 

Because... well, let's just say we still disagree on the virtues of Bush. Now if you want to bash his willingness to shut the checkbook and say no to ridiculous spending for things I'm not convinced our Federal government needs to be picking up the tab on in the first place, I might join you in slinging some mud.

I realize it's a minor point that has nothing to do with the gist of your post, but Couric is at CBS.

You may actually have a point there.

 

Because of Bush, we're not very popular with terrorists and tin pot dictators wanting a bigger footprint on the world stage.

I would argue that because of decades of American foreign policy decisions led to our unpopularity. I won't give Bush the full "credit" on this.

Because of Bush, we've not had one terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01.

This is a hypothetical. There's no way to prove this.

 

Because of Bush, we don't bow on the steps of the U.N.

This is a mixed bag. Had Bush allowed UN inspectors to finish their job in Iraq, we wouldn't have been led into the situation we're in there, because there was no evidence of WMD.

 

Because of Bush, otherwise healthy infants are not partially born only to have a horrendous proceedure performed to kill them before they legally draw their first breath.

He does get this one.

 

Because... well, let's just say we still disagree on the virtues of Bush. Now if you want to bash his willingness to shut the checkbook and say no to ridiculous spending for things I'm not convinced our Federal government needs to be picking up the tab on in the first place, I might join you in slinging some mud.

Bush is responsible for much irresponsibility.

First of all, it wasn't Katie Couric (NBC) who asked the Bush Doctrine question. It was Charles Gibson (ABC). Second, when Gibson asked the question, he stated that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. This was enough information for her to answer the question without ambiguity.

 

This was only a "gotcha" question because Palin wasn't apparently familiar enough with Bush's foreign policy positions to answer it.

 

Whichever one they are all the same.

Still was a gotcha question.

No there is no defention of Bush Doctrine. ANd if there were, what section of the Doctrine would he be refering to?

So tell us since you have no ambiguity to the question, what is Bush Doctrine Pre-Iraq War?:confused:

We keep chewing the same cabbage... :lol:

I would argue that because of decades of American foreign policy decisions led to our unpopularity. I won't give Bush the full "credit" on this.

I was being somewhat sarcastic since Bush tends to get blamed for all the negatives. I view your response as very fair and actually quite accurate. I don't see being popular with terrorists and dictators as something to be desired by the way.

 

This is a hypothetical. There's no way to prove this.

Actually, the fact that no terrorist attack has occurred is quite concrete, which makes it very easy to prove. Now, whether Bush should get any credit for this or not is clearly up to you, but I think it's hard to deny that his actions have not led to an increase in attacks... so I would think that the objective opinion on this one would favor Bush.

This is a mixed bag. Had Bush allowed UN inspectors to finish their job in Iraq, we wouldn't have been led into the situation we're in there, because there was no evidence of WMD.

There was plenty of evidence due to Saddam's past actions and refusal to let inspectors do their jobs. I'm still not convinced WMD weren't moved or buried or otherwise concealed. The point is, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN sanctions for months, and everything else we've debated into the ground. The bottom line is I don't see the elimination of one despotic dictatorship in the Middle East as a bad thing. I agree to disagree.

He does get this one.

Thank you. :thumb:

Bush is responsible for much irresponsibility.

I cannot argue this as effectively as I wish that I could for many reasons. :thumb: