McCain Picks HORRIBLE VP

Dude, there are always risks involved in child birth and you are right that they increase with age. The decision to have children, at whatever age, was a private decision made by Governor Palin and her husband. I am sure they were informed and made a rational decision. They appear to have a good marriage and to be dedicated parents. I believe their children will get good care. It's unfortunate that one of their children has Down's Syndrome however I am sure that they love that child as much as the others. It is not up to you or me to judge that child's life. I suspect you are in favor of abortion or the so-called "right to abortion". Those of us who believe that life is God given do not accept that some life is worth more than others or that any person can deny life because that life may be less than perfect. And let's not get into the war in Iraq and all the lives lost. I was opposed to the war from the beginning as I am opposed to war unless it is absolutely necessary for self defense. Your criticism of Gov. Palin for the decision to have four children - one or more in her eary 40's (I don't have the details of when they were born) was totally inappropriate and the fact that she had more than the average is also none of your business. I really think your comments were an insult to women, not just to the governor of Alaska.
 
"Dudester" said:
Trying to change anybody's mind? NO WAY, I'm just letting off steam.
Click to expand...
But other than affording you some relief -- catharsis, perhap? -- what other function does it serve? This display of emotion and lack of rational, cold objectivity is probably one of the American characteristics you criticise.
BTW, If you prefer a more articulate writing style check out Big Bad Wolf's stuff, he and I are on the same page more or less but he says it better.
Click to expand...
I would like to think there are significant differences. Yes, I am cynical about the political process, seeing it as a charade; the real decisions are made behind closed doors by an oligarchy. But I don't get furious at this: all modern "democracies" function this way, with the US perhaps just a bit more sanctimonious than the others. Also, I don't see much of a difference between the two presidential candidates and I don't understand why you're getting so excited. They differ only in image and on cosmetic matters; on real issues -- such as militarism, foreign policy, economics -- they seem to differ not at all. Since it's a charade anyway, why get so worked up over it?
Bush made a decision too to invade and destroy a country that did nothing to us and we're paying for it DEARLY with lives, cash, and loss of reputation. These people need to be HEAVILY checked out because the ramifications if they are unstable could be too horrible to even think about. I think after Bush we need/should demand mental health evaluations by top Psychiatrists of the last 4 remaining candidates (2 Pres/2 VP).
Click to expand...
The decision to invade Iraq was a highly rational one, and one which had been planned for years. Read Kevin Phillips's "American Theocracy." Geostrategic control of the Middle East is crucial if the US is to remain a great power, and if affordable oil is to be available to Americans. Cheney and his study group had been analysing the scenario of invading Iraq since perhaps 1998. Incidentally, USA, Britain, and France have been playing power politics in the Middle East since the end of WW1 (1919). You might deplore the loss of life of a million Iraqi civilians since 2003 -- but what's new? A Democrat president ordered the dropping of nuclear devices over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I reiterate: the Bush administration acts rationally according to its own strategic framework. It's sheer silliness to blame everything on the idiosyncracies of Bush the man.
 
"bigbadwolf" said:
The decision to invade Iraq was a highly rational one, and one which had been planned for years. Read Kevin Phillips's "American Theocracy." Geostrategic control of the Middle East is crucial if the US is to remain a great power, and if affordable oil is to be available to Americans. Cheney and his study group had been analysing the scenario of invading Iraq since perhaps 1998. Incidentally, USA, Britain, and France have been playing power politics in the Middle East since the end of WW1 (1919). You might deplore the loss of life of a million Iraqi civilians since 2003 -- but what's new? A Democrat president ordered the dropping of nuclear devices over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I reiterate: the Bush administration acts rationally according to its own strategic framework. It's sheer silliness to blame everything on the idiosyncracies of Bush the man.
Click to expand...
That's like saying I shot a man because I felt it was the right thing to do.
 
"bigbadwolf" said:
The decision to invade Iraq was a highly rational one, and one which had been planned for years... I reiterate: the Bush administration acts rationally according to its own strategic framework.
Click to expand...

"soulskier" said:
That's like saying I shot a man because I felt it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

There is a fundamental difference between reason and feelings, and being rational does not necessarily mean being right. BBW is undoubtedly aware of this. So would be anyone who ever enrolled in a freshman course in logic (and attended class).
 
"soulskier" said:
That's like saying I shot a man because I felt it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
The USA is a rogue state (as great powers always are). It does not act benignly or from altruistic motives. But that doesn't mean the people at the helm are stark raving lunatics. They make calculated decisions in a world of risk and incomplete information. Some of the decisions hence don't pan out. I'm not saying the decisions are "right" or "moral": this kind of asinine discussion is best left to freshman debating societies, and often passes for "political debate" in the USA. I only talk of what is, and what might be, and not what should be. There is a strategic framework that is independent of which person -- or indeed party -- assumes supreme office. USA's strategic imperatives -- and the means used to implement them -- will not change when Obama becomes president. To reiterate a point from an earlier post of mine, there is virtual unanimity on policy issues between the two major parties. The nuances only appear at the operational level -- and even these are not major. As I keep telling people, it's daft to imagine that the tick marks made by little old ladies on their ballot forms are going to influence whether or not a carrier task force is dispatched to the Persian Gulf. Hegemonic empires don't work this way.
 
Lots of anger here. Who cares, he is going to lose anyway (I am not stating my choice, but reality) and she is hot. That is why he picked her. Figured he might as well have someone good to look at the next 60 days since he will probably lode anyway.
Everyone needs to relax. Good thing about America and Americans is we always self correct. We went with Bush because of many reasons and he made some mistakes so the country is now going to go the other way. If this guy screws up he will lose next election. The US is not perfect by any means but in the end, it still is the greatest country in the world as far as stability, economy, politics etc. Not perfect and we have our issues, but we always find a way to be ok. Argentina is a great country with great people and those living in Argentina should cherish the experience and the opportunity but always be thankful they are still US citizens. (Those of you who are)
 
There are lots of opinions and Clinton did a lot of damage as well and did nothing to take down Bin Laden so you can say what you think. Clinton never one a majority of over 50% and would have lost both times if not for Perot. I for one am glad you are out of the country because it is people who whine and complain like you that bring us down. If you are so upset then do something about it. Go home and raise funds and organize for your candidate. There are doers and talkers and you seem to be one who likes to bloviate. The US is a great country and all administrations have issues. We do tend to self correct and you should read history. You make such angry statements, go to Blacks, you need it.
 
Dfwemr, I agree she is kind of hot in a dirty librarian sort of way. And, it appears she may actually be a grandma, does that make her a GILF?
 
Do not know about the GILF. Would need to see a picture. I am not trying to bash people for their views, we all are entitled but to make such angry and really accusatory statements to our government is just out of line. She should try to go live in Russia as I have spent a lot of time there or in Bolivia or Venezuela etc. I hated Clinton personally and disagreed with him on many issues but in the end, his 8 years where ok. We survived and yes there was good but there was bad and how quickly people forget.
Nobody stole any election, numerous recounts were done by the press ad Bush even won by more than the 500 votes. I respect people's opinions and views but some people just go nuts. They need to chill and appreciate that even when we disagree, at least we are allowed to openly as the constitution is a great document. SO, I did not know she was a she but I guess she still needs to get some. May release that anger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top