Obama sucks.

[firepokemon]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Told you mother fuckers he'd be a useless President. Democrats are nuts and the Republicans are just as nuts. But conservative America always wins. You stupid fucking red neck fuckers.

Just like I told you stupid TPMERS in 2001 that attacking Iraq would be a real mistake and NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION would be found. I was proven right that eventually America would tire of that war. You lot were way too slow of course. Something about America makes you go, "ewww poo" its fucking Americans.

Here skiting a little shit from New Zealand where we shag sheep and cows but heh at least I'M NOT AN AMERICAN

[Link]

Obama has a billion dollar health plan he hasn't done anything on.

[firepokemon]

Well that plan is going to be even harder now with a new Republican Senator from Massachusetts. Hence, why I made this topic. It was in trouble before and its in trouble now. Democrats will play all types of tricks to get healthcare passed. I just don't think the Republicans should hedge their bets yet. 2010 mid-term elections might be looking good for them. But who the hell are they going to select in 2012 for the Presidential race?

Obama may suck but all your candidates look pathetic.

[Roy Karrde]

Told you mother fuckers he'd be a useless President. Democrats are nuts and the Republicans are just as nuts. But conservative America always wins. You stupid fucking red neck fuckers.

There are red necks in Massachusetts? I mean there could be a occasional one, but this is the deepest blue state in the union.

Just like I told you stupid TPMERS in 2001 that attacking Iraq would be a real mistake and NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION would be found. I was proven right that eventually America would tire of that war. You lot were way too slow of course. Something about America makes you go, "ewww poo" its fucking Americans.

Psst Iraq was 2003 not 2001

Well that plan is going to be even harder now with a new Republican Senator from Massachusetts. Hence, why I made this topic. It was in trouble before and its in trouble now. Democrats will play all types of tricks to get healthcare passed. I just don't think the Republicans should hedge their bets yet. 2010 mid-term elections might be looking good for them. But who the hell are they going to select in 2012 for the Presidential race?

Obama may suck but all your candidates look pathetic.

Healthcare is dead, the Dems options on it get worse and worse, and after what we saw tonight, don't expect too many Blue Dogs running to the Democrats side.

As for 2012, remember 2008, there is a strong "Anybody but him" vote out there that could return in 2012. Anyway for names

Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee and a few others that are top contenders. Then again back in 2006 everyone thought it would be Clinton versus Edwards.

[firepokemon]

My redneck comment wasn't directed at Massachusetts. Though I do hear they're rather nuts in that area. America in general though is actually very conservative (I should probably use a different term here since most democrats or centrists wouldn't see themselves as conservative but compared to the rest of the world you lot are ) compared to other Western Countries.

And meh I would have made the post 2002 or early 2003. I was still right but the stupid americans wouldn't wake up at the time.

And I do wish republicans and stupid americans would wake up. Palin is not a good candidate. She is a walking disaster. I do hope they go for her though. The rest of the world will laugh at your stupidity. Huckabee won't win the Republican primary. He just isn't good enough and won't win. Mitt Romney is an idiot. I don't even know the other guy.

But are you serious in saying those are your candidates. Obama may look a loser now and the Democrats may look dead in the water. But the Republicans risk getting too arrogant and running one shitty campaign. Not to mention the economy can and should improve in that time.

[kazr]

Massachusetts is actually one of the more progressive parts of the country, along with the entirety of New England. Obama won there by about 20 points. But keep in mind that "liberalism" in America is center left at best, and on average center right compared to other parts of the world.

With no public option, the health care plan will inevitably be a complete joke. It's just going to keep getting watered down until it's eventually only going to be throwing money at health insurance companies with very little benefit for the actual people.

Obama needs to try to ram that shit through as fast as possible because it's the #1 on his agenda, and if he doesn't get it done within the first term, or even within the first year or two he'll be shown as an ineffectual dumb ass by the media and will have no chance of winning again.

But are you really surprised Obama isn't the incredible end all, be all guiding light he was made out to be? Welcome to the new president, same as the old president. This is United States' Politics and as long as people have their American Idol and Big Macs nothing is going to change.

I am actually pretty pleased with Obama though, because every time I read the news and there's an article on him/something he's done my reaction is usually "yeah that's pretty reasonable" or "hmm that makes sense" instead of *slowly shakes head and pounds fist on desk* every time that fucking walking disaster Bush was in the news.

[Roy Karrde]

My redneck comment wasn't directed at Massachusetts. Though I do hear they're rather nuts in that area. America in general though is actually very conservative (I should probably use a different term here since most democrats or centrists wouldn't see themselves as conservative but compared to the rest of the world you lot are ) compared to other Western Countries.

So? That is how we run things and it has worked out pretty well for us so far.

And meh I would have made the post 2002 or early 2003. I was still right but the stupid americans wouldn't wake up at the time.

What that he didn't have WMDs? All evidence to that point, pointed to he did, which is why Clinton bombed him in 98.

And I do wish republicans and stupid americans would wake up. Palin is not a good candidate. She is a walking disaster. I do hope they go for her though.

You know if 2008 taught us anything, it is that a bad candidate can be viewed in a very positive light after campaigning. Hillary Clinton went in looking like a Class A Bitch. Now she has higher poll numbers than Obama. People grew to respect her during her campaign.

Huckabee won't win the Republican primary. He just isn't good enough and won't win.

Yeah umm Huckabee right now polls highest against Obama out of any of the candidates. If Palin doesn't get in, expect him to win.

Mitt Romney is an idiot.

Yeah he also is the most economically minded of the bunch

I don't even know the other guy.

Bobby Jindal? Governor of Louisiana, He is highly popular down there and was considered a VP Candidate for McCain. He is very charismatic, good looking, and is basically the Republican answer to Obama.

But are you serious in saying those are your candidates. Obama may look a loser now and the Democrats may look dead in the water. But the Republicans risk getting too arrogant and running one shitty campaign. Not to mention the economy can and should improve in that time.

The economy can improve, it could also take another dip, we don't know. And Republicans do risk getting too arrogant and running a bad campaign. On the other hand Democrats could continue their arrogance and not take away the right message from last night. If they do it won't matter what campaign the Republicans run, they will win.

This whole affair is a savage indictment of America's legislative system. I frankly find it insane that a man dying a few months ago, due to be in office until at least 2013, can be the major difference between over 30 million of America's poorest and most vulnerable getting the health care they need, and the rich just laughing at them as they die in the gutter.

Psst the number is around 8 to 12 million, but continue

It's ironic that considering Kennedy was a champion of health care and progressivism, his death has probably just consigned the USA's health care to the dark ages.

Well that is a opinion, personally the dark ages for USA's Health Care would be adopting something like what Britain has.

[Heald]

Psst the number is around 8 to 12 million, but continue

SOURCE

Well that is a opinion, personally the dark ages for USA's Health Care would be adopting something like what Britain has.

In the UK, we call any system where the rich and powerful prosper and thrive at the expense of the poor and vulnerable the Dark Ages because, unlike America, we actually had a Dark Age where kings, lords and the privileged subjugated thousands of impoverished people to a life of cruelty, poverty and famine. And that is exactly what the health care system in the USA is like: if you're lucky enough to be born into a privileged background, are lucky enough to fall ill before getting insurance or are not born with a serious hereditary disease, then congratulations, you get to have insurance. If you're unlucky enough to be born in an impoverished background, or you fall ill before you can afford adequate insurance or you're born with a hereditary disease, all factors completely outside of your control, the current system damns to you a life of either terrible health or terrible debt in order to pay back your bills. I am not entirely in favour what Obama is offering, I personally think it is too much, too soon, but it is better than leaving it the way it currently is, a horribly skewed system that only serves to widen the socio-economic disparity between rich and poor.

[Roy Karrde]

SOURCE

SOURCE

In the UK, we call any system where the rich and powerful prosper and thrive at the expense of the poor and vulnerable the Dark Ages because, unlike America, we actually had a Dark Age where kings, lords and the privileged subjugated thousands of impoverished people to a life of cruelty, poverty and famine. And that is exactly what the health care system in the USA is like: if you're lucky enough to be born into a privileged background, are lucky enough to fall ill before getting insurance or are not born with a serious hereditary disease, then congratulations, you get to have insurance. If you're unlucky enough to be born in an impoverished background, or you fall ill before you can afford adequate insurance or you're born with a hereditary disease, all factors completely outside of your control, the current system damns to you a life of either terrible health or terrible debt in order to pay back your bills. I am not entirely in favour what Obama is offering, I personally think it is too much, too soon, but it is better than leaving it the way it currently is, a horribly skewed system that only serves to widen the socio-economic disparity between rich and poor.

You know it is funny, as you have shown a view that is completely outside the realm of reality with what the United States has. Of the 80 to 90% of this country that is insured, 70% of it atleast is perfectly happy with our health care. Now I would love to think that 90% of our country comes from a privileged background, but that is just not true.

But you know what I call the Dark Ages, I call any country that has a cancer survival rate that looks more like the Middle East than the western world. I call it the Dark Ages when a system of health care is so fundamentally flawed, so broken that over 4,000 women were shut out of maternity wards because the Government decided to cut back. I call it the Dark Ages when a Government decides to ration treatment on back pain shots so they can save a buck even though over 60,000 patients use it. I call it the Dark Ages when a system is so flawed, that it provides Private Care to it's employees instead of using it's own broken system.

Now we can throw back and forth insults at our other Health Care system all day in a massive pissing contest. But this thread doesn't seem to be the time or place for it.

[Heald]

SOURCE

Err...2007. And from a conservative watchdog source, rather than a news source that is less than one month old.

Now we can throw back and forth insults at our other Health Care system all day in a massive pissing contest. But this thread doesn't seem to be the time or place for it.

True, to each his own, although were those percentages referring to the NHS? I know the NHS has some problems, most of them are nothing to do with the NHS itself but the Labour Government's horrible mismanagement of it, but that sounds like some cooked up crap that Rush pulls out of his ass for his outdated, misinformed opinions.

[kazr]

Bobby Jindal? Governor of Louisiana, He is highly popular down there and was considered a VP Candidate for McCain. He is very charismatic, good looking, and is basically the Republican answer to Obama.

Bobby Jindal is a goofy looking brown skinned dude, do you think he could even make it to the Republican primary, much less win it? A bunch of angry, old as dirt white guys would never vote for one of 'them darkies'.

[Roy Karrde]

Bobby Jindal is a goofy looking brown skinned dude, do you think he could even make it to the Republican primary, much less win it? A bunch of angry, old as dirt white guys would never vote for one of 'them darkies'.

You mean the Republican Party who is ran by "One of them darkies" and was elected to that position by a bunch of "Old as dirt white guys who would never vote for a darkie"?

Here is a hint, if you are going to make stupid statements, make sure the party you are insulting isn't ran by a black man.

[kazr]

You mean the Republican Party who is ran by "One of them darkies" and was elected to that position by a bunch of "Old as dirt white guys who would never vote for a darkie"?

Michael Steele, RNC chairman that was elected when Obama was running for president to show that the republican party is 'with it' 'hip' and 'fly' too. Tell me that this isn't the whitest looking black person that the RNC could of picked ever,


if it isn't obvious why he was elected then, welp lol

Btw RNC chairman elections aren't like primaries/general elections. Average Joe Smith drinkin' his miller high life watching NASCAR doesn't have the same grasp of what's going on in politics/the world as the higher ups in the RNC who vote and decide this kind of shit.

[Heald]

This whole affair is a savage indictment of America's legislative system. I frankly find it insane that a man dying a few months ago, due to be in office until at least 2013, can be the major difference between over 30 million of America's poorest and most vulnerable getting the health care they need, and the rich just laughing at them as they die in the gutter. Of course, what will really kill the bill is a bunch of grown men throwing toys out of the pram and trying to stall as long as possible, but it wouldn't have been possible for such a juvenile tactic to have taken place if Kennedy hadn't died.

It's ironic that considering Kennedy was a champion of health care and progressivism, his death has probably just consigned the USA's health care to the dark ages.

[mr_pikachu]

I'm not going to argue over the health care plan beyond saying that, based on the evidence I've seen, it looks like a missile aimed straight at ourselves. Similar plans enacted elsewhere have had devastating results, so I see no reason why this should do better. Nor will I argue over the Republican candidates two years before the next presidential elections -- I'd be curious to see how your list would differ from Roy's, fp.

In any case, at this point I see Obama as being known for four things: 1) pushing for multiple stimulus bills after his first efforts were worse than ineffective (see the graph Roy Karrde posted here for details), 2) attempting to jam thousand-page bills through the legislature without giving sufficient time for them to be read and/or understood by the people who have to vote on them, 3) being handed a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, and 4) not making any other changes. Well done, Mr. President.

[kazr]

I'm not going to argue over the health care plan beyond saying that, based on the evidence I've seen, it looks like a missile aimed straight at ourselves. Similar plans enacted elsewhere have had devastating results, so I see no reason why this should do better.

Devastating results? Uhh... pretty much the entirety of Europe has free, public health care, Canada, Israel, Cuba, the list goes on and you know what they all say about it?

That it's awesome.

Guess what other country has free health care? Iraq. Guess who pays for it? The tax payers of the United States.

Give this video a watch, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqqSHr0wVA
Having your life ruined financially because you can't pay medical costs vs maybe, possibly having to wait a little longer to get surgery (which this is barely ever the case) is a pretty piss poor fucking argument against the MOST POWERFUL, RICHEST NATION ON EARTH, being able to provide a basic necessity in this day and age to all of its citizens. Private health care isn't going to disappear, and the people who can afford it will still be able to get better care than anybody else regardless.

And to anybody who says that socialized health care is terrible in other countries is literally a child who is eating up media rhetoric that is being made by the same ultra rich people who benefit from public health care not passing and who will never have to worry about paying medical bills, or having their house/car/whatever repo'd because they can't pay the crushing debt.

Fact of life: Everybody gets sick.

[Roy Karrde]

Devastating results? Uhh... pretty much the entirety of Europe has free, public health care, Canada, Israel, Cuba, the list goes on and you know what they all say about it?

That it's awesome.

Cuba may not be the best example, seeing how 26 patients just died in a Cuban Hospital because they are so pathetic that they could not afford heating.

Pro Tip: Don't buy Michael Moore's rhetoric about Cuba, it's health care system is fucking pathetic.

Guess what other country has free health care? Iraq. Guess who pays for it? The tax payers of the United States.

Give this video a watch, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqqSHr0wVA
Having your life ruined financially because you can't pay medical costs vs maybe, possibly having to wait a little longer to get surgery (which this is barely ever the case) is a pretty piss poor fucking argument against the MOST POWERFUL, RICHEST NATION ON EARTH, being able to provide a basic necessity in this day and age to all of its citizens. Private health care isn't going to disappear, and the people who can afford it will still be able to get better care than anybody else regardless.

And to anybody who says that socialized health care is terrible in other countries is literally a child who is eating up media rhetoric that is being made by the same ultra rich people who benefit from public health care not passing and who will never have to worry about paying medical bills, or having their house/car/whatever repo'd because they can't pay the crushing debt.

Fact of life: Everybody gets sick.

Yeah maybe we should have a Healthcare thread, as the level of bullshit in here seems to be rising.

[kazr]

Cuba may not be the best example, seeing how 26 patients just died in a Cuban Hospital because they are so pathetic that they could not afford heating.

Pro Tip: Don't buy Michael Moore's rhetoric about Cuba, it's health care system is fucking pathetic.

Cuba is embargo'd by the most powerful nation on earth, they do the best they can with what they've got.

Michael Moore is the last person's view I'd take as fact. He's a sensationalist shit head just like anybody else.

[Heald]

I have since revised my post, but like you said, this isn't the time and place to discuss it, so why continue?

[Telume]

Personally,

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...ealthCare.aspx

Yes I know, old article but I find it has some truth behind it.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

Health insurance is awesome

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

My spidersense detects friendship.

[shazza]

The video only goes for 12 seconds.

P.S: You're a fucking faggot, dude.

[Heald]

Yeah, this is exactly what I wanted to wake up to.

Roy, don't say 'this debate doesn't belong in this thread' and then continue debating it. I could easily refute and argue against some of your opinions you've put in this thread but it isn't the right thread. Be the bigger man and take your own advice.

Otherwise, I feel this thread is accelerating towards something I'd expect to see in Mt. Moon. I like a shitstorm as much as the next asshole, but I'm a mod, and therefore have to keep the peace. If you want to scream and swear at each other, take it to Mt. Moon. If, God forbid, any of you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, then by all means, post it.

Anyway, for the benefit of Rudy: the video is of real Palin (not Tina Fey) saying that she can see Russia from Alaska in response to a question asking her depth into Russia's politics and actions. So yeah, she's an idiot. I'll underestimate her all I want, thank you very much, although I also know that roughly half of the USA is also stupid enough to vote for her.

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah, this is exactly what I wanted to wake up to.

Roy, don't say 'this debate doesn't belong in this thread' and then continue debating it. I could easily refute and argue against some of your opinions you've put in this thread but it isn't the right thread. Be the bigger man and take your own advice.

Otherwise, I feel this thread is accelerating towards something I'd expect to see in Mt. Moon. I like a shitstorm as much as the next asshole, but I'm a mod, and therefore have to keep the peace. If you want to scream and swear at each other, take it to Mt. Moon. If, God forbid, any of you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, then by all means, post it.

That is very true, I'll re frame from Health Care from now on.

Anyway, for the benefit of Rudy: the video is of real Palin (not Tina Fey) saying that she can see Russia from Alaska in response to a question asking her depth into Russia's politics and actions. So yeah, she's an idiot.

No where did I see her say "I can see Russia from Alaska" she said and I quote "They are our neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land, here in Alaska" which is true, and if say Mexico was acting up and invading countries, and Rick Perry was running for President or Vice President I would expect him to bring up Mexico's proximity to Texas as one of the main reasons he has more political experience and knowledge of Mexico than his opponent.

[Heald]

No where did I see her say "I can see Russia from Alaska" she said and I quote "They are our neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land, here in Alaska" which is true, and if say Mexico was acting up and invading countries, and Rick Perry was running for President or Vice President I would expect him to bring up Mexico's proximity to the United States as one of the main reasons he has more political experience and knowledge of Mexico than his opponent.

So she is saying that 'one could see Russia from Alaska' and since she lives in Alaska, either she has actually seen Russia herself from Alaska (therefore confirming that she has seen Russia from Alaska) or, despite living in Alaska, has never seen Russia and is only relying on what someone else has told her.

Now, she was asked what insight she had into Russia's politics and actions. Her first answer was that one, not her personally, could see Russia from Alaska. Therefore, any Alaskan who can see and happens to be facing Russia is now automatically qualified to give insight into Russia's politics and actions? I'm sorry, but no amount of weaseling from even the most blind follower of Palin can excuse her from such a ridiculous answer. Granted, if she had said it last, after a real answer into what real insight she has, then fine, but the fact she decided to open her answer with that is just moronic. Hell, on a clear day, I can see France from the British coast, does that qualify me as an expert in French politics? No, in fact, I only have a very basic knowledge of French politics, pretty much all of which comes from reading the news. Funnily enough, being able to see a different country from your homeland does not somehow give you a psychic link to that country's politics, no matter how hard Sarah Palin and her equally idiotic fan base want to believe it.

Now, the point about Russia's proximity to Alaska might be equatable to Mexico's proximity to Texas, except that the part of Russia Alaska is adjacent to is thousands of miles of meaningless, uninhabited wasteland. Granted, some military manoeuvres by Russia take place there, but any more than the usual sabre-rattling we've come to expect from the Russians? How much of a threat it is to the USA is debatable, and an invasion by Russia is incredibly unlikely.

There is also the fact that most of Russia's political action occurs in Moscow, and if we're using proximity as a factor, both New York City and Juneau are about 4500 miles away from Moscow.

The point is, it is a ridiculous argument to say that Palin has any kind of Russian political expertise because Alaskans can see Russia.

[Roy Karrde]

So she is saying that 'one could see Russia from Alaska' and since she lives in Alaska, either she has actually seen Russia herself from Alaska (therefore confirming that she has seen Russia from Alaska) or, despite living in Alaska, has never seen Russia and is only relying on what someone else has told her.

Well living in Texas, I have never seen the border with my own eyes that doesn't mean I can't see it from El Paso. Now I have no idea how Palin learned of this, but the visibility of Russia from certain areas of Alaska most likely is a documented fact just as the visibility of the border from El Paso is a documented fact down here.

Now, she was asked what insight she had into Russia's politics and actions. Her first answer was that one, not her personally, could see Russia from Alaska. Therefore, any Alaskan who can see and happens to be facing Russia is now automatically qualified to give insight into Russia's politics and actions?

No, she was giving a example of the closeness of Russia, which plays into a very large factor of why a Governor of Alaska would have insight into Russian Political Action and Politics.

I'm sorry, but no amount of weaseling from even the most blind follower of Palin can excuse her from such a ridiculous answer. Granted, if she had said it last, after a real answer into what real insight she has, then fine, but the fact she decided to open her answer with that is just moronic. Hell, on a clear day, I can see France from the British coast, does that qualify me as an expert in French politics? No, in fact, I only have a very basic knowledge of French politics, pretty much all of which comes from reading the news. Funnily enough, being able to see a different country from your homeland does not somehow give you a psychic link to that country's politics, no matter how hard Sarah Palin and her equally idiotic fan base want to believe it.

Lets play this out, if France was buzzing across British ships, and coming dangerously close to the British homeland, making threatening gesters, and overall taking a very belligerent attitude toward Britain. Do you think the British Prime Minister would have a direct focus on what was happening in France, from the Political Situation to the Military Situation? Of course. As if France were to make one wrong move, and a international incident were to happen, Britain would be on the front line of a possible war with France.

It is idiotic of her detractors to not believe the Governor of Alaska, a state that is very much it's own country due to how disconnected it is from the rest of the United States, would not have his or her focus directed toward a neighboring country that could at any moment launch a attack that would place Alaska directly on the front lines of World War 3.

Now, the point about Russia's proximity to Alaska might be equatable to Mexico's proximity to Texas, except that the part of Russia Alaska is adjacent to is thousands of miles of meaningless, uninhabited wasteland.

Which means absolutely nothing since we are talking about war planes and missiles, not troops.

Granted, some military manoeuvres by Russia take place there, but any more than the usual sabre-rattling we've come to expect from the Russians? How much of a threat it is to the USA is debatable, and an invasion by Russia is incredibly unlikely.

It's debatable because it is a inconvenient truth for you. It may be sabre rattling, but you have a maniac in power in Russia at the moment which had just invaded a neighboring country, while tensions were escalating with the west because of our missile program. At any moment during the Georgia crisis, Putin could believe that the US support for Georgia was tantamount to war and decide to take us out. Hell at any point in the last 10 years Putin could go off the deep end and decide to blow us away. That is the risk you take when you have such a maniac in power, and as the Governor on the state that would be on the front line of such a war, she would have much more insight into the comings and goings of Russia, than a Freshman Senator from Illinois. You would have to, just as the current Governor of Texas has much more insight into the gang wars happening right across the Texas border, than the Governor of New York. It is the height of stupidity not to believe a Governor would not have every eye focused on what is happening in his or her own back yard.

There is also the fact that most of Russia's political action occurs in Moscow, and if we're using proximity as a factor, both New York City and Juneau are about 4500 miles away from Moscow.

Yet Moscow has shown that they will use military aggression against Alaska first, not New York State.

The point is, it is a ridiculous argument to say that Palin has any kind of Russian political expertise because Alaskans can see Russia.

It is just a ridiculous argument to take what she is saying at face value and not see the nuance of it.

[Blademaster]

I'm pro-Obama.

This thread amuses me.

That is all.

[kazr]

The mental gymnastics required to be able to come to the conclusion that the Alaskan-Russian comment about foreign policy is anything but completely ridiculous and borderline retarded is astounding.

The France/Britain analogy is terrible. Is the Prime Minister of Britain going to hang out on the edge to watch France and see what they're up to to base his decisions? Likewise is Palin going to squat down on some remote island that technically still counts as Alaska and watch the shit hole waste land of Siberia and come to some ground breaking conclusions?

[Roy Karrde]

The mental gymnastics required to be able to come to the conclusion that the Alaskan-Russian comment about foreign policy is anything but completely ridiculous and borderline retarded is astounding.

Not really if you have knowledge of the events that take place upon that border, as well as the information and knowledge that is presented to a border state governor.

The France/Britain analogy is terrible. Is the Prime Minister of Britain going to hang out on the edge to watch France and see what they're up to to base his decisions? Likewise is Palin going to squat down on some remote island that technically still counts as Alaska and watch the shit hole waste land of Siberia and come to some ground breaking conclusions?

No, they have radar as well as military officers and advisers to do that, but then again I would hope you would know that since you just said the analogy was terrible with no real argument to back that up.

[Blademaster]

The mental gymnastics required to be able to come to the conclusion that the Alaskan-Russian comment about foreign policy is anything but completely ridiculous and borderline retarded is astounding.

Not really if you have knowledge of the events that take place in Misc. on a regular basis.

FTFY, kazr. You've just been gone too long to realize what 'debating' on this forum has become.

Hay guys I haven't read the thread!

But at least Obama is trying to change things, I think it's probably just the USA's indoctrinated into a culture of not getting anything done quickly through bureaucracy.
I think it also comes back into the whole "Look, unless this policy is for my political party, I ain't supportin' it!" Regardless of how good it is for the people.

Words!

Roy, you destroy everything you touch in Misc.

I was talking more bout the politicians than 'the people.'

Btw - My opinion is that of a casual outside observer, I am not privvy to the power plays for each bill.

Dear Andrew,

If this is your general viewpoint, please post in every Misc. topic concerning politics from now on.

Sincerely, Blade

I love you too? See this is why I stopped debating in Misc!

You stopped debating in Misc.!? Really!? *looks wildly through topic* When?! When!?

[Roy Karrde]

You stopped debating in Misc.!? Really!? *looks wildly through topic* When?! When!?

You haven't noticed me pretty much being absent from Misc for the vast majority of 2009?

[Heald]

Roy, I get what you're saying, I get that a governor of Alaska ought to at least know what is going on in Russia and the political environment in Russia due to its proximity.

However, in her entire career in Alaskan politics, I can only find one instance where she ever made reference to Russia, and that is she said to GW Bush that if Russia invaded a NATO country, the USA ought to honour its NATO obligations and send troops to repel the Russians.

Otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that she even knew the name of the Russian president, let alone anything else that went on in the Russian political scene.

Palin has never been to Russia. She's never demonstrated any expertise on U.S. policy towards Russia. She doesn't have any background in international relations at any level. But for Republicans, the fact that she's lived in a state near Russia is somehow a qualification for national office.

You don't need to hear it from me though. Sarah Palin herself clears it up for us:



For the benefit of Rudy and the other bandwidth-impaired, she is asked to explain why she feels Russia's proximity to Alaska gives her the kind of foreign policy experience required of national office, and, apart from a vague reference to trade missions and national security issues (as in she mentions them but never goes into any depth on what involvement she has with either of these issues), all she does is repeat over and over that Russia is next-door neighbours with Alaska and Russia is very close to Alaska.

Until I see some evidence that Sarah Palin has actually explained the depth of her involvement in dealing with Russia as governor of Alaska, I'm afraid repeating 'next-door neighbours' ad nauseum is not reasonable evidence that she has any kind of foreign policy experience whatsoever.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I get what you're saying, I get that a governor of Alaska ought to at least know what is going on in Russia and the political environment in Russia due to its proximity.

However, in her entire career in Alaskan politics, I can only find one instance where she ever made reference to Russia, and that is she said to GW Bush that if Russia invaded a NATO country, the USA ought to honour its NATO obligations and send troops to repel the Russians.

Otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that she even knew the name of the Russian president, let alone anything else that went on in the Russian political scene.

Of which is not evidence that she does not get daily breifings on Russia or knows the comings and goings of Russia. Logic itself dictates she would. Also last time I checked, Governors tend to not make major political statements unless in a election year.

Palin has never been to Russia. She's never demonstrated any expertise on U.S. policy towards Russia. She doesn't have any background in international relations at any level. But for Republicans, the fact that she's lived in a state near Russia is somehow a qualification for national office.

Except the Governor would be getting daily briefings on the situation in Russia if it came close to threatening Alaska, as well as any additional briefings she requested. Not to mention you are basing your knowledge on her expertise on US Policy toward Russia, based on 2 months on the campaign trail, that in and of itself is incredibly poor judgment on your part.

You don't need to hear it from me though. Sarah Palin herself clears it up for us:

For the benefit of Rudy and the other bandwidth-impaired, she is asked to explain why she feels Russia's proximity to Alaska gives her the kind of foreign policy experience required of national office, and, apart from a vague reference to trade missions and national security issues (as in she mentions them but never goes into any depth on what involvement she has with either of these issues), all she does is repeat over and over that Russia is next-door neighbours with Alaska and Russia is very close to Alaska.

I admit the CBS interview was not her best interview. That being said the facts do speak for themselves, and while I do not live in Alaska I do live in a border state and thus have seen what a border state governor does do, what kind of information he or she gets briefed on, etc etc.

Until I see some evidence that Sarah Palin has actually explained the depth of her involvement in dealing with Russia as governor of Alaska, I'm afraid repeating 'next-door neighbours' ad nauseum is not reasonable evidence that she has any kind of foreign policy experience whatsoever.

Which I doubt you will get until the next election, until then you have to deal with the logic of the situation, based on what a Governor does get briefed on and should get briefed on when it comes to foreign policy situations that could endanger their state.

[Heald]

Roy, you're basing your entire argument on the faith that Sarah Palin, as governor, received briefings purely because she was governor. Not facts, faith. I'm asking for evidence that she did receive these briefings. You're saying that because there is no evidence she didn't, that means she did. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

If she had said she had received briefings in her interviews, I would be inclined to believe her. The fact that she did not mention receiving briefings just builds the case against her. It would certainly be better for her than saying 'next-door neighbours'.

Otherwise, what you call 'logic', is actually just faith. Should she have received daily briefings? Yes? Did she? No evidence can suggest one way or another.

Also:

Not to mention you are basing your knowledge on her expertise on US Policy toward Russia, based on 2 months on the campaign trail, that in and of itself is incredibly poor judgment on your part.

Whereas you're basing it on faith. What's the worse judgement? Me using facts or you using faith?

[Roy Karrde]

Edit: I typed out a whole reply to the post, but then did 2 seconds on Google, guess what popped up.

In her role as Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has received briefings on Russian military plane incursions near Alaskan airspace, an Alaska National Guard spokesman confirms to CBS News.

“Russian incursions near Alaskan airspace and inside the air defense identification zone have occurred,” a McCain campaign spokesperson told CBS News. “When they do, Governor Palin is briefed on them by the Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard. U.S Air Force fighters have been scrambled repeatedly in response to Russian actions. After September 11, 2001, U.S. tolerance for such activities is understandably low.”

Captain Guy Hayes, an Alaska National Guard Public Affairs Officer, confirmed that Palin has received such briefings from Adjutant General Craig E. Campbell on Russian plane incursions.

“Guardsmen do work in the section that patrols the air over Alaska,” Hayes added.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09...y4479278.shtml

[Heald]

So she only ever received briefings when they actually occurred? Not the daily briefings you previously claimed she received?

Also, the question levelled at her what about her expertise in Russian politics, not about being briefed when incursions actually occurred. I'd imagine she would have received a briefing if that occurred, hell, I imagine the president would have also received a briefing too if Russians entered US airspace.

The point is, there is a far more disturbing lack of evidence that she has anything near the level of foreign policy experience required of national office than one or two pieces of evidence of her dealing with a foreign power.

[Roy Karrde]

So she only ever received briefings when they actually occurred? Not the daily briefings you previously claimed she received?

Neither you or I know how many briefings she got, or when she got them if they were on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Obviously times of heightened tension would cause her to receive more continuous updates than times of no tension.

Also, the question levelled at her what about her expertise in Russian politics, not about being briefed when incursions actually occurred. I'd imagine she would have received a briefing if that occurred, hell, I imagine the president would have also received a briefing too if Russians entered US airspace.

Except those two are interconnected, as is with the original argument about Alaska sharing a border with Russia. The border they share allows Russia to take a hostile attitude with Alaska, and invade Alaskan Airspace. As Commander and Chief of the Alaskan National Guard she has to keep up to date with threats and possible attacks that could happen, that in and of itself qualifies as experience.

The point is, there is a far more disturbing lack of evidence that she has anything near the level of foreign policy experience required of national office than one or two pieces of evidence of her dealing with a foreign power.

That is a opinion, at this point she has far more foreign policy experience than one Freshman Senator from Illinois.

[Heald]

At this point she has far more foreign policy experience than one Freshman Senator from Illinois.

This is also an opinion, and even though this isn't about Obama, if by 'at this point', you mean right this very second in time, Obama has a plethora of foreign policy experience under his belt. What does she have? Apart from a yet to be proven knowledge of Russian politics and a couple of trips she has done since being named the VP candidate, nothing. She hadn't even left the USA a year prior to being named the VP candidate. One would think that if Alaska's proximity to Russia means that it is of enough interest to the governor to be briefed daily about it, she would at least travel to Russia, or at least phone Moscow, neither of which she has done (or at least, no evidence exists for her doing). Don't try to turn this into 'well even though she has no real experience, neither does Obama' because I'm not here to support Obama, my point is the evidence for Palin even having a basic knowledge of Russian politics is minimal at best, whereas the lack of evidence suggesting she has an involved knowledge is of much greater concern.

[Roy Karrde]

This is also an opinion, and even though this isn't about Obama, if by 'at this point', you mean right this very second in time, Obama has a plethora of foreign policy experience under his belt.

No, as Sarah Palin is not running for the President right now. I am comparing her 3 years of Foreign Policy experience as a Governor, to the 1 year in the Senate, of which you cannot even gain much or any Foreign Policy experience when he ran as a President. If we are going to say that she doesn't have the foreign policy experience to hold National Office, then Obama when he began running did not either.

What does she have? Apart from a yet to be proven knowledge of Russian politics and a couple of trips she has done since being named the VP candidate, nothing.

You mean other than the numerous deals she did with Canada on the Alaskan Pipeline? Remember Russia is only 1 half of her Foreign Policy experience.

She hadn't even left the USA a year prior to being named the VP candidate.

While leaving the US would help gain foreign policy experience, it is not a pre requisite.

One would think that if Alaska's proximity to Russia means that it is of enough interest to the governor to be briefed daily about it, she would at least travel to Russia, or at least phone Moscow, neither of which she has done (or at least, no evidence exists for her doing).

One it is not her place to contact Moscow by phone, since you seem to know little about American Foreign Policy, we do have a hierarchy, Governor's do not deal with heads of state or even Foreign Governments in a direct fashion as a National Government does. Second that is a very piss poor example, she does not need to be over there to know what is going on over there. Governor Perry does not need to go to the Gangland held territories of Mexico to know that it is a lawless uncontrolled place that could spill over into Texas.

Don't try to turn this into 'well even though she has no real experience, neither does Obama' because I'm not here to support Obama, my point is the evidence for Palin even having a basic knowledge of Russian politics is minimal at best, whereas the lack of evidence suggesting she has an involved knowledge is of much greater concern.

You drew out the comparison and now you have to deal with it, if we are going to make her foreign policy experience a example of why she should or she should not be on the national level, then we damn well are going to compare it to others who have ascended to the national level. Don't like it, tough.

But at least Obama is trying to change things, I think it's probably just the USA's indoctrinated into a culture of not getting anything done quickly through bureaucracy.

Except he is getting the wrong things done, he passed a Stimulus and then took his eye off the ball, focusing on divisive issues like Health Care and Cap and Trade while the Stimulus failed to help the US economy. Now look at where we are at, a dead Cap and Trade bill, a dead Health Care bill, and a economy that is getting worse again.

I think it also comes back into the whole "Look, unless this policy is for my political party, I ain't supportin' it!" Regardless of how good it is for the people.

Is that why Independents and Democrats as seen in the Scott Brown victory are moving toward the Republican party?