Palin Hijacks TEA Party?
 

Beginning Of The End: Sarah Palin Hijacks The Tea Party Movement : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

So, did the TEA partiers choose her, or is she taking control? I think this is an attempt to intigrate them into the mainstream Republican Party, otherwise they could actually become a legitimate third party option and split the republican party, basically handing the Democtrats every election from here on out.

Thoughts?

I can't say I know enough about Sarah Palin's activities these days, or what's happening to the Tea Party Movement, but I read that Palin hasn't ruled out running for president in 2012.

I don't think this is a coincidence.

She did. After giving a speech to the higher ups in the TEA party movement in Tennessee, she turned right around and endorsed a big government, career politician, pandering lier in Rick Perry for TX governor.

I share these sentiments. I'm too simplistic and oblivious to Palin's politics because they affect me none at all, neither now, or three years from now; but the issue for her now is to not let her name and one-time 'VP candidacy' be forgotten, even though she probably wasn't that deserving of the position in the first place.


To add... I did come across this snapshot of her address from the other night:

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kx...pwi0o1_500.jpg
During the Q & A portion of Sarah Palin’s appearance at last night’s Tea Party Convention, she was caught on camera reviewing response cues pre-written on her hand. Enhanced images confirm that Palin indeed had the words “Energy”, “Tax cuts” and “Lift American Spirits” scribbled on her palm.

Let us put aside the fact that this proves that her softball questions were screened in advance, and that she needed help answering pre-screened softball questions — and focus on the fact that she has a clearly visible POW/MIA bracelet with her son Track’s name on it.

What is that about?

I see the writing a non-point distraction. I see no difference in the notes in hand vs. notecard / teleprompter other than showing the lack of a decent operational staff.

As far as what Palin is trying to do, another non-issue. She holds no office so at this point is a non-politician making a speech at a leaderless mass in hopes of gaining a political foothold and trying to bring the teapartiers in-line with the hardcore right. Both will fail (hopefully).

Jetee...I'd much rather see a couple of words written on her hand than someone who reads from tele-prompters constantly, like Obama did throughout his campaign.

I read in the paper this morning that Palin encouraged the Tea Party, in her speech, NOT to appoint a leader and NOT to identify itself with any other group.

She's growing on me. I like her.

The TEA movement (Taxed Enough Already) and the TEA Parties started out as something magnificent, a huge groundswell of popular anger against the RepublCrat policies which have brought the US to the brink of financial, political, and social collapse.

It is being progressively infiltrated by Right-Statists of the worst kind. I was a fan of Mrs. Palin from the get-go, because she had significant promise to be the first effective advocate that rural people* have had in Washington in many years. She took the "Good Oil Boys" of Alaska to the mat, canceled the Ketchikan-Gravina Bridge when it went over-budget (and was then savaged for this simple act of changing her mind), and worked to introduce effective** predator management to control invasive species and preserve both livestock and native wildlife. However, she is evidently an Israel-first-er, which sits not well with me at all, and appears to have slid off into the muck and mire of [R]-brand DC politics. I am -deeply- disappointed in both Mrs. Palin and the TEA movement for these latest developments. Tom Tancredo, Joseph Farah, and all their excrementitious ilk are cordially invited to suck rotten eggs. I'm all for a literacy test before voting, but -only- if it's applied in all languages. Naturalised Citizens are Citizens too, even if they -don't- speak English, and the US has no official language. The idea is to keep morons from voting, not to keep ethnic, cultural, or religious groups from voting.

This bunch doesn't want to eliminate or minimise State power, they just want it in "the right hands"...by which they mean Their Own Hands. Disgusting.



*As distinct from Jimmy Dean Farms and Monsanto Corp.
** As opposed to feel-good, do-nothing, Sierra Club Crap.

The teleprompter issue is a non issue, because she, and Obama, and everyone else uses them as much as anyone else. All major politicians have speech writers.

Agree, it's a sad state of affairs.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsd...lin_speech.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...PalinRally.jpg

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/6356/sdfgdafg.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a4/SOU2007.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/200...eprompter2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...gress_1988.jpg


Can we just stop now?

Well, I should probably add that I view the "Tea Party movement" not as a political or social movement so much as a bunch of angry supply-siders who decided to vent their anger through a few protests, Facebook, and Twitter. It was newsworthy for a while because of the sheer numbers, but that's the way the media works when it comes to large groups of vocal people.

That said, the Tea Party movement has yet to convince me that they are concerned about much beyond fiscal policy, and a particular period of fiscal policy decisions at that. They're against Keynesian recessionary economics--I get that. What I don't get is how they expect to do anything beyond, perhaps, influence decisions on emergency stimulus spending.

An attempt by someone who might want to run for president with the Republican Party to win the hearts of people voicing that they want little more than tax & spending cuts is a good idea.

Yeah, I see it, too (the distraction point). It was news; not my opinion of anything for or against, but actual news of the event.

Kinda sorry I posted it in the first place because, just as you pointed out, it has distracted (or attracted) attention away from the original premise of this topic.

Just like Sarah Palin is one big distraction. She's not even a politician anymore. I see her more along the lines of 'freelance lobbyist', in my opinion. What do I care of whatever political agenda she has? especially if she can't host her own venue to do so, instead choosing to piggyback onto the convention for the TEA Partiers. (again, an irony considering what my first posts' random and additional aside prompted)

If she seriously wants to consider entering her name into the presidential ballot box again in a few years' time, she needs to realize that it's not going to be effective, if at all, to campaign for her own brand of politics now, when it is basically irrelevant to the general population at large to think about what a "rogue politician" has in mind to instill change in the American mindset and government.

One essential ingredient to politics (and comedy!) is timing.

The Tea Party started, as stated, as an upswell against wasteful spending.

It has, since then, devolved into a useless mass of conflicting ideology and has been infiltrated and taken over by the dingbats which would otherwise be kept far away from policy making (and rightfully so). So now they represent Republican ideology in the same way that Loose Change represents Obama's foreign policy.

I did see a brief clip of her in an interview at fox news either that night or the next day where she basically said that she wasn't opposed to running for President in 2012, and would if called upon by the country. That's not an exact quote and I'm too lazy to find and post the link, so take it for what it's worth.

The problem is that incomplete fiscal policy at that.

The simple fact is that given future projections for SS, medicare, and military spending, taxes either have to go up or those programs have to be cut without a corresponding cut in taxes. Anyone actually campaigning on that is, of course, political suicide.

Thanks BG

...the above youtube video of Palin does nothing but make that CBS correspondent sound ridiculous. The correspondent said the 3 words on Palin's hand made it appear that she doesn't know her facts. Are you kidding? It makes it look like she doesn't want to miss mentioning 3 key issues while on the spot in front of the camera, tired from speaking appointments, and under public scrutiny for any teensy flaw including any hesitation in her voice. That can hardly be compared to Obama's reliance on the teleprompters where he read every word of what he was saying, and that, more than likely, a speechwriter wrote.

I know you all must agree but the question remains...why is CBS trying to roast her by using something so ridiculous as that? That tells me they credit her as a viable threat to their own personal political allegiance and want to make her look bad but can't find any material. I wouldn't want to make my living doing that.

And as far as saying she's open for whatever 2012 brings her way...that's no surprise. But I doubt seriously she would take that on because of the strain on her family. With that being said though, dangling that carrot in front of everybody is upping her desirability for anything else she wants to pursue....precisely her plan, most likely.

Fox News took over a very small libertarian movement last year and now the GOPPTB are either positioning Palin for a 2012 run or are building up an even stronger cult of personality to bolster her Fox News show. If I were a GOP strategist, I'd probably be grooming Palin to be a fifth media face, after Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and ORly, but they may not be objective enough to realize how badly President Obama would defeat her in a presidential race.

When I saw him speak as a candidate, there wasn't a single teleprompter in the place. He did about forty five minutes of EXCELLENT stump speech armed with only a microphone, then took questions for another hour. Sorry to pour some cold fact on your smear, but there it is. The man is an amazing speaker, and it's sad that you can't even let him have that.

One telling thing about Sara's Hand... Notice that the word "budget" is crossed out in the phrase "budget cuts" and replaced with "tax cuts". So she knows that selling ACTUAL small government, in terms of reduced services, etc, is a non-starter. People want to get, but don't want to give. So talking "budget" cut is a bad idea. "Tax" cut, though, people go for that. So let's write THAT on the ol' hand...

Again, as shown in this very thread, Obama relies on the teleprompter as much as Palin does, if not less. He relies on speech writers as much as she does. Just like Palin also had a ghost writer for her book.

Regarding the hand, it is drawing attention because its amateurish and because, well, its rare that someone needs a cheat sheet for basic principles one one is supposed to be for.

I don't think it matters much, but the notion that anyone who says anything about that is trying to "roast" her is nonsense.

The thing about Palin that is so appealing is that she is not "perfect", she is not trying to be, she knows her weaknesses, and she takes the barbs with a smile. As most major politicians evolve into national prominence they have had the opportunity to fine tune their message and delivery over years and years of practice, trial and error. Palin is doing it in the full light of unrelenting national coverage. Imagine being a mom and a mayor of a town with a population the size of a large high-school and a few years later being the most prominent non-elected official in contention for a Presidential run. Palins history suggests that she will work "like the dickens" to improve her skills and before you know it, she will be as smooth as some of our great politicians who took a life time to perfect their skills. Palin is a reflection of the people in the Tea Party, not perfect but they do the best they can. The more "elite" politicians and media people attack her, the more she is loved. Their best strategy would be to ignore her.

A great tea Party ticket ticket would be Palin and Rice, in either order. The Republican Party would be history.

P.S. - And I am a Danica Patrick fan too. I will be watching a NASCAR race for the first time in about 30 years. There is something about those feisty brunets.

Aren't you worried that would merely split the conservative vote and give the Democrats a majority?

I hear some Republican "elites" don't like Palin. I was watching MSNBC, Morning Joe yesterday and Joe was saying Republicans he talks to don't like her but they don't have the courage to say it publicly. If that is what being a Republican is about, the party will be history, having the courage to do what you think is right is number 1 in my book. I am not worried. In fact, the Tea Party movement is making Obama move to the center, the movement can not be ignored by either party.

What makes you think Palin isn't a part of the elite?

Or are you merely stating that she doesn't come across as such?

When you are a millionaire, former VP candidate, who now makes a living doing paid speaking engagements and campaigning for major candidates in your own party, you ARE the elite. Ron Paul might make the "elite" of the party nervous, but Palin? She's as much an outsider as Bush was, which is to say they portray themselves as such, but are the furthest thing from it.

While I like Palin as a person, she simply lacks the political savvy to be an effective President. I think she's too trusting (naive?) to ever "get it". The hand writing is a good example. It's just reflective of not foreseeing how its presence would create an opportunity for cyncism and attack - and she didn't get that. I don't consider her to be unitelligent, I just think the Presidency requires some intangible quality which she is lacking. I can't see a scenario where I would vote for her as President.

I don't view the TEA party as trying to create a viable third party. I think it's more along the lines of creating a voting block which is large enough to encourage a candidate's/representative's fiscal responsibility, regardless of the candidate's other politcal beliefs.

Your pay scale doesn't make you "elite". Your attitude towards those who make less than you makes you elite.

So she's an elitist in "populists' clothing"?

I am white collar. I hold the "very competent" trash collector in higher regard than the "complete fuck-up" CEO. Pay scale doesn't matter to me. All I care about is whether you are honest, hard working, and have integrity. I believe Palin looks at it the same way. I believe that most other politicians and most other professionals look at it the other way around - because they are elitists.

...at least, that's my take on it.

i think folk should watch this film about populist faces in the crowd:

A Face in the Crowd (1957)

i'm confused by the discourse of inwardness that's so big in conservative circles these days---even more than during the bush period, which was that of manly men being all resolvy and shit. for reasons that elude me now i watched the last glenn beck-sarah palin love-fest and was kinda amazed at the whole thing--just how long they spent talking about how persecuted each is at the hands of the pointy-headed elite (who *are* these people anyway?) before moving into a long strange sequence of monologues about trust. who can you trust in a persecuting world? how do you know who a good person is? the two of them decided that george washington was a good example of a good person.

it made my head hurt.

there's something really quite odd about this language of inwardness. i understand the words but not why it would have any persuasive power---i mean watching people on television talking about how inward they are, how "real" and "authentic"---it's a little strange don't you think?




on the teabaggers: personally i think the more visible they get the more alienated folk will become by them. it's curious that so much attention was paid to palin's speech and not to the delightfully racist opening speech on the first night of that gathering of those authentic and inward-looking regular folk.

but i confuse easily. and my head's all pointy.

I use the term pretty loosely. By "elite", I often refer to a group of people in various walks of life who have a pretentious attitude and act as if they are superior to others. On a true definition of the word Palin is certainly in a "elite" class, as would any nationally known and influential public figure would be.

True. Using Reagan as an example, he was "elite" in many ways but came across as a very down to earth person. One of my biases against Obama is that he is too smooth, too tailored, too "perfect"...I like a little dirt, wrinkles, weathering, etc. I am a Maryann guy, not a Ginger guy, if you ever seen Gilligan's Island.

There is no Tea Party movement.

What started as a grass roots effort is now an unstructured collection of disparate interests and certainly not populist.

And Palin has aligned herself with the most extreme....the non-populists, non-libertarian, extremist conservatives....those at the recent convention.

Where the first speaker bashed Hispanics and Blacks and suggests that Obama, "a committed Socialist ideologue", would not have been elected if not for the fact that "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."

... a second speaker shouting out that Obama " "has ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation. He's elevated immorality to a new level, setting aside the entire month of last June to celebrate gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender pride…"

... followed by speeches from the "birther movement" proclaiming the Obama presidency is illegal.

And Palin, in later, post-conference remarks, talking about declaring war on Iran.

This "Tea Party" movement will certainly not attractive the disenchanted Independents.

At some point this nation will have its theoretical honest dialog regarding race. The societal issue in question here is a bit more involved than simply calling people "racist."

see dc's post directly above yours ace.

Does bashing Hispanics and Blacks and suggesting that Obama would not have been elected if not for the fact that "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote"..contribute to an honest dialogue?

This is who Palin has aligned herself with..by choice....along with the social/religious conservative extremists.

I actually doubt the Tea Party movement or whatever you call it will be an issue in a few years.

But, on the Iran issue what do you think of the latest developments, and what do you suggest be done? More talk?

The true populists among the Tea baggers are the ones who are not only upset by bank bail-outs, but at the same time, want strong regulations to control the banks/financial institutions. They are not free market extremists.

The true populists are the ones who might be upset with government spending, but also want govt intervention to help Main Street instead of Wall Street.

The true populists arent screaming to not roll back the tax cuts on the top bracket.

I agree the nation is not ready for the dialog, if that is the point.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

Or, each individual has their own opinion on various issues but are brought together by one common theme of wanting to be heard.

Some will see the conflicts on issues, while others see what is common, and a few see both.

P.s. - After my business goes bankrupt, perhaps my future is in fortune cookies, what do you think?:paranoid:

Declaring war on Iran, as Palin and other neo-con extremists have suggested, is nuts....with the potential of exploding inside Iraq (whose majority is more favorable to Iran than the US) as well. Is that really what you want?

Absolutely, more talk...but not with Iran...but with EU, Russia and China.

Whats the rush to war, ace?

There is no intel that suggests Iran is anywhere near close to having the capacity to threaten its neighbor (Israel) or us. On the other hand, declaring war will certainly result in a jihadist call to action.

The fact that you would make this observation:

followed by this declarative:

drive home how true THIS statement is:

You are "these people"....since you asked.

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

While I believe there is intel that suggests Iran is further along than you imply, I won't debate that point, because it will muddy the water.

I have a couple of honest questions. If these need to move to another thread, someone just say so:

Do you believe that Iran will sell a nuclear device to a terrorist organization as soon as it has several (many) warheads of its own?

Do you believe Iran can reliably maintain possession of all of their nuclear fuel, even in the event of a government overthrow?

Personally, I believe "yes" and "no".

so an "elite" is anyone you can't win an argument against. and they're all evil, those people who can't win arguments against. and that's how it goes.

well thanks for clearing that one up, cimarron. it sure has been fun interacting with you, as it always is. i learn alot from each and every one of your fine posts.

i'd say something off-handedly sarcastic here but i'm not really in the mood to read a post later that's either all rending of garments and casting of ashes or that blames me for the demise of the entire board. and america in general. or whatever.

There is a difference between elite and elitist. Millionaires are the economic elite regardless of how they feel about the poor. Candidates in national tickets are political elites regardless of how they feel about the disenfranchised. Contributors in the most watched news channel with spots on prime time are media elites regardless of how they feel about the viewers.

She might not be an "elitist," but she is, without a doubt, "elite."

Winning an argument against you is such an absurd notion. It would require you to entertain the fact that you might be wrong. Something tells me you work in academia.

The fact that you use "teabaggers" as an intentional demeaning of their movement in order to dismiss it outright rather than engage in debate of the core merits...well, that's why it's "elitist" - you further my case.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

I would agree with you on that. I didn't realize that was the context. They were becoming intertwined in the thread.

But roachboy IS right.

How can a movement that openly supports the exclusion of the less informed from voting rolls through a number of tests, the reduction or elimination of assistance programs to the poor, and supports a flat tax that would have a net impact of increasing taxes on the poor and reducing them on the rich have the gall to call anyone elitist? Eliminating those perceived to be less educated from voting rolls and reducing taxes on those considered to be more worthy or superior is the basis of the definition of elitism.

I mean, the definition of elitism is :
1.

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.

1.

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2.

Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.


"Elitist," in the context of the public voices of the tea partiers (again, Im not talking about the grassroots level, just the visible voices), refers to people who make complex arguments that stray from a simplistic world view.

The Tea Party movement which actually grew out of Ron Paul's support base was worthy of discussion.

When it was co-opted by the social/religious extremists with their "Obama is a Socialist/Fascist/Muslim extremist/Anti-American" nonsense and hate filled rhetoric and signs....they became Tea Baggers to me and worthy of ridicule, not serious discussion. :)

The irony is that Ron Paul is now facing tea bagger primary opposition. (link)

I have not been to any tea party events in 8 months. I condemn the birthers, the racists, and such that have somehow found a means to be heard. It is their presence which has me avoiding events.

However, fact is, the "teabaggers" label existed long before these nutjobs were allowed to speak at such a big event. The term was used from the get-go and is perpetuated in order to invalidate the "worthy base of discussion." It is to this point, I stand my ground.

The "war card" is simply letting Iran know that war is an option. Playing the war card, may be premature at this point, but Iran is entrenched in a pattern of defiance. the question is, what do we (all nations concerned) do about it?

I want Iran to discontinue its nuclear weapons research and development.

My view of negotiations is that you have to have leverage. I don't "rush" to use the leverage, but it is important for all parties to know what the leverage is in order to come to a "win-win" solution.

What security clearance do you have? How do you know? If you do know, why would you post the information here?

[quote=aceventura3;2757126]


I want Iran to discontinue its nuclear weapons research and development.


QUOTE]


What right do you have to demand they stop. Would you come to my house and tell me that I can't have any firearms?

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------


The same question applies to you, and all those who think Iran is developing Nuclear weapons.

it's ironic what a delicate flower you now pretend to be, cimarron.
so wounded and outraged by the arrows of fortune.

so what exactly was the tea party "movement" **for** initially? you know, before it got co-opted by the various forces of Evil.
i know what it was against.

so let's see.

Dude, I'm not wounded. You are completely missing my point. For the last few months, every time you pop into a thread to contribute, your post will ALWAYS include some disparagement about conservatives. You will extrapolate a single statement made by a single person across ALL conservatives. This is new to you, and I don't know why you feel the need. It stifles the conversation. It places people into defensive mode - not wounded or victimized, just pissed off that they can't get a word in without some disparagement. Rather than exchanging ideas and letting those ideas bear out who has a better argument, it slams the door on constructive debate. If your position on Obama vs. Hoover is, "Obama is not Hoover and this is why...." then say it. Instead, you start with, "GOOOD LOOORD! There is no end to what conservatives will concoct in their surreal blah blah blah." Conservatives didn't suggest that, Ace did. But you still picked the fight. I would have sided with all of you on that debate, but instead I got lumped with the other side unjustly.

So, just think about. You're going to do what you want to do, but at least consider that picking a fight every time might be interfering with the threads.

As for what the TEA party is *for*, I would say that the most widely heard views at rallies were:

A balanced budget amendment.
Fund it, then spend it - not the other way around.
Fair taxation (admittedly broad).
A simplification of the income tax code.
An end to unrelated earmarks on bills and an end pork projects
Term Limit Amendment for Congress

Now, I ask you. Do those things make us horrible people? Are any of those things outrageous?

so what you want to do is debate my rhetorical approach? you're joking, right?

ok so i'll bite to a limited extent: most conservative argumentation--you know, the stuff that circulates through what was not so long ago a conservative media apparatus the boundaries of which blurred into mainstream political discourse, but which is now (fortunately in my view) collapsed in its influence (if not its funding) back onto the paleo-right for which it speaks---most conservative argumentation that originates from within this media-scape operates by attempting to control the framework of a conversation. which makes it a monologue, but whatever. that's how the political argumentation operates--you assert a set of assumptions and then advance a sequence of relatively banal points (more often than not) which presuppose acceptance of the framework. silly stuff like markets are rational. silly stuff like state action is by definition a source of distortion. silly stuff like the distribution of wealth under capitalism can be equated with some kind of moral economy.

you know the drill. it's been the dominant political discourse for a very long time.

so when ace from time to time a claim or a thread gets launches that operates in this kind of way---the latest example being the "will obama be the next herbert hoover" thread---it seems entirely reasonable to go after the assumptions or the framework that enable such a claim to appear to make sense. particularly when those assumptions or that frame is the conservative talking point of the day or week.

for example.

and that's just the way it is. i didn't make the political landscape the way it's been. lots of very deep pockets have funded the creation of a really stupid but quite efficient conservative repetition machine (if you like---it's shorthand)....and it was effective for a while, particularly during the rather dismal period right after 9/11/2001...but that's another matter.



i'm at work at the moment so have limited time to dip in and out of these things...like now i have a meeting. sorry.

~sigh~

This isn't working out. That was my last, best attempt at trying to repair some sort of causeway where we could exchange positions without the venom.

It's not you, it's me. If we pass in the hallways, I promise I will be polite and say hi. You can keep the CDs I loaned you.

Cimarron,

I'm sure that everyone knows that when someone says "conservative," they are not referring to every single person who defines him or her self as a conservative.

And I don't see the need to get defensive when someone says "conservatives this or that." That is, I don't see the need to join in and defend the conservatives who do say this or that. As a mirror to that, people on the left side of the political spectrum have also had to deal with certain generalizations, like "Obama the messiah," "Obama the socialist," "Obama the far leftist who is controlled by the radical left." No one suddenly started defending those positions because they were thrown in with the lot. Instead, for the most part, people have challenged those generalizations when they were false.

I have no illusions that the democrats are the "left," so when they are criticized my reaction is not to get defensive over democrats. Whenever I do "defend" democrats, is merely as a way of pointing that there is a huge distance between what the democrats stand for and a true left wing position. Like in this thread: my point in attacking the comparison was not to shield Obama from criticism, but to point out that neither Obama nor Hoover can be thought of as "too interventionist" and that it wasn't interventionism that created either economic crisis.


Regarding "Obama the next Hoover:" it wasn't just Ace who said it. It is a theme that has been repeated by key figures within not only the republican party, but the conservative media apparatus. Now, you may not think that they are true conservatives, and you may not care for them, but we are talking about people who are greatly admired and followed by most people who consider themselves to be conservatives. Sure, we could use "Limbaugh conservatives" instead of "conservatives," but I don't see the use, and I don't see the reason why not doing so should stifle debate.

Wow. I wish I could find the words to answer this question without coming across as a total a$$. But at the risk of not being understood, I will simply say that "might makes right" - this is the way of the world from the dawn of time, like it or not.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 PM ----------

I assume they lie.

Why no mention of North Korea?

So if you are "mightier" than me, it's ok for you to come to my house and tell me I can't have my guns?


And when no evidence is found that they have Nukes, you simply assume the evidence is wrong? You simply have a "hunch" they really do? Ace...you wouldn't happen to be a certain ex-president when not in cyber world would you? :rolleyes:

I think Iran is a bigger threat to world stability. Conflict in the ME can easily lead to a world war in my opinion. I think North Korea can be isolated much easier. I also believe that if we can follow through with Bush's plan regarding the ME we can see generations of world peace. The key is in representative governments. I fear if we take our eye of off that goal we are all at risk. If the rest of the world is unified with Iran, North Korea will get the message.

---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

Like I wrote, I knew I would be misunderstood. But, in direct answer to your question, yes. That is how it works. If I can garner the support of superior force ( the law, police, military, mobs, etc), I can force you to my will. The opposite is true as well.

The thing is though, I respect freedom as do most Americans. If you let me live in peace and freedom, I have no issue with you - most Americans are the same way. In addition at some point I will perceive your actions to restrict the freedom of others as a threat to my freedom. If my neighbor is not free, nor am I. So, I would use force to protect freedom, even if it is not mine. Wouldn't you?


I don't trust them, so yes - I would assume the evidence is wrong.

Yes.

Are you suggesting you have no doubts? On a scal of 1 to 10 with 10 being absoluttly no trust, I give the people running Iran a 10. Do you give them a 1? Or, are you at 5+, meaning you are closer to my view than you probably realized.
I know what I am, and I have tried explaining it in the past. I am the guy who has to be talked down, I am the guy who takes action first and asks questions later. Fortunately I know who I am, when I get those urges, I let cooler heads take the lead. If I were President, and asked for the authority to use force, assume I would use it, don't give it to me until you are ready. My promise has always been to be honest, so just as Bush said what he was going to do, I would as well. The problem is when a person like me is dealing with people who don't really communicate directly saying what they mean. If the guy in Iran says he wants me wiped off the face of the earth, I assume he means it, and I act accordingly. I don't assume he was joking, negotiating, using hyperbole or whatever.

I guess the difference is that I base my actions/decisions on the facts at hand. And those facts say they don't have the weapons. But even if they did, I have no right to tell them they can't. Only when it is clear that an attack is IMMINENT(sp?) would I take a pre-emptive action.

Assuming Palin is all hawkish on Iran, and assuming she meant what she said when Israeli settlers should be allowed to expand their settlements on Palestinian territory, how is this in any way conducive to world stability and Bush's plan regarding peace in the Middle East?

And then we have North Korea. What message would they receive if the world isn't unified with Iran (which would likely be the case)? If anything, using the war option (i.e. an essentially American/Israeli-led option) against Iran would embolden North Korea to carry on with their own nuclear pursuits.

I don't see the value in Palin's positions. I only see the harm.

Please read the above again and again, and once more. I think it may be true.
Please do not forget who this woman is when she is all schmoozy and perky.

She is very, very fucked up.
Please read the above again and again, and once more. I think is true.

Well it's nice to see someone point out what this movement started as. It's unfortunate that it has become hijacked by the likes of beck, hannity, palin and the gop.

I enjoyed the tea party movement when it first began, but now it's just become the perverted talking points of the right wing heads.

What facts are you talking about? All I think we have is speculation and what they say.


In general this is an interesting position you are taking with some implications that many would be very uncomfortable with. Basically, given your reasoning how would you justify any law governing behaviors that may put others at risk? How would you justify any non-voluntary requests by the UN?



Ask 100 people to define when an attack is "imminent" and I bet you won't find many who agree. Also, "preemptive" action doesn't necessarily mean using violence - and nov-violent action can be as devastating with the same consequences of violence, i.e., cutting off medicine, aid, food and water can cause many to die without a single shot fired.

The facts I'm talking about are that there are no weapons.

There is no law justifying us telling another country what they can or can't do.

[quote=Baraka_Guru;2757324]Assuming Palin is all hawkish on Iran, and assuming she meant what she said when Israeli settlers should be allowed to expand their settlements on Palestinian territory, how is this in any way conducive to world stability and Bush's plan regarding peace in the Middle East?

Given current conditions, I don't think it would be. Not only Palin, but I don't think most people understood the "Bush doctrine" or his strategic plan for the ME. Many people simply just dismissed the issues with slogans, like "Bush lied, people died", etc. I have no idea what Obama's plan is, which is much more important than what Palin thinks or even what Bush did at this point.


They will continue their acts of defience, develop nuclear weapons threatening their neighbors. Their neighbors will grow increasingly uncomfortable and an arms race will begin, one incident could then spark war.

Canada has participated in war, and I think Canada would be involved in any future ME conflict. I think they would also be involved in any world conflict with N. Korea. Canada is not a pacifist nation I do not understand how peace can be maintained without the acknowledgment that the use of force is an option. It is nice that some have the option of pretending war is not an option, but others do have to carry that burden and make those decisions when or if the time comes.

Palin is a private citizen with an opinion. Obama is our elected President, he needs to clearly communicate his position to the world, I don't think he has done that, giving people like Palin opportunities to attack his lack of clarity.

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

Some of the world's greatest people came to greatness from humble roots. What is your point?

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------

Isn't that your opinion?

Perhaps, we are in a semantics trap, but I think I disagree with you.

International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't misunderstand Canada's typical role in war or the use of its armed forces. We are not a nation that would easily support the commitment of troops and hardware to a preemptive strike or much else outside of a United Nations resolution. We have a long history of missions based primarily on peacekeeping, security, and rebuilding. In rare cases where we've taken an active role in offensive missions, it was mainly due to an already dire situation, rather than forcing someone to bend to one's political will.

Yes, Canadians have gone to war and they will continue to do so, but the pretenses under which they do it are not exactly as they are in the U.S.

That said, there is a difference between keeping war as an option and preferring it as one.

First, it isn't always in the best interest for an American president to constantly lay his cards on the global table when it comes to international relations. Second, it has become apparent that Obama wants to place economic sanctions on Iran in light of recent events regarding their nuclear program...even if it means circumventing the U.N. I don't think Obama is obscure about his view of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Palin, on the other hand, though a private citizen, is also a former politician and an influential political commentator. In addition, she has hinted that she might want to run for the country's highest office. Her opinions matter.

Nope, it's a verifiable fact. They have enriched uranium to 20%. That's not weapons grade. It is being used the the civil engineers for medical isotopes.

Yeah, when it comes to war, Canada prefers to stay oat of it.

(Sorry! Sorry! I'll keep it in that other thread!)

She's a moron. An evil moron, like Cheney, but a moron nonetheless.

The two should go hunting together. Soon. Please.

I'm sorry but this statement is so ridiculous it isn't even funny. Please educate yourself on the usage of teleprompters and speechwriters before you spout ignorant things like this.

Here's the thing... If somebody had asked us, in the 70's, if America would ever elect a B-movie actor, we'd have laughed. But we did. Twice.

If somebody had asked in the 90's if we'd ever elect a known-stupid failed-businessman son of a former president, we'd have laughed. But we did. Twice.

Hell, if somebody had asked in the 00's if we'd ever elect a black man, a large percentage of us would have laughed. But we did.

We laugh at Sarah Palin at our own peril. I think there's a scary-high chance she could get elected, just looking at history.

I have never met a person or talked to a person who wanted to engage in a war. I am not sure how to clarify the difference between willingness to engage in war compared to "want", but there is a difference.

It is interesting how people use the concept of sanctions. In some ways a sanction could be considered an act of war. In some ways the consequences of sanctions could have a higher toll on human life and suffering than a swift, decisive use of the military. Sanctions are certainly preemptive.

Her opinions don't matter, she has near zero influence as an individual on our national policy. To the degree that there is a "movement" that she leads, which she does not, she could have influence but that requires millions of people who hold the same view. Even then that impact can be delayed until elections.

The left's obsession with Palin or their fear of her is humorous to me. Palin does not influence my views, on many issues she is simply in sync with my views, again there is a difference that some don't see or understand.

Her opinions do matter. People listen to her, why I don't know, but they listen. Why do you think she is parading around the country endorsing canidates?

If you say so.

What about their research and plans to develop nuclear weapons? Is it a "fact" that they are not doing that?

Is it a fact that Ahmadinejad want to wipe certain groups of people off of the face of the earth? Is it a fact that some want to pretend that is not a direct threat to all of humanity?

Consider these rhetorical questions, my views will not change, I doubt yours will either. I will never trust the current leadership in Iran, absolutely never. Did I say 100% in a thousand lifetimes never, ever, ever trust..., just to be clear.:shakehead::shakehead::shakehead:

---------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

Miss the point. Can you give an example how she could influence anything this nation does right now, as a private citizen?

Campaign for people during the midterm elections

I don't say so, the UN says so. They are violating the NPT for delayed compliance to meet their safeguards obligation, not for building nuclear bombs.

There is no evidence to suggest they are building a nuclear bomb. I know you hate it when facts get in the way, but you can't ignore them...well maybe YOU can.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

^^what he said, as well as continue to fear monger over Iran.

Palin may have hijacked the Tea Party, but it appears Iran has hijacked this thread.

I don't really follow this, so I did a google search. It seems there's some dispute as to whether Iran is building a trigger for a nuclear bomb.

BBC News - Ahmadinejad denies Iran nuclear bomb trigger tests

It requires me to believe their president in order to agree with you that they have no plans to a nuclear weapons program. I don't know that I can make that stretch, since they already lied about the secret nuclear site.

I don't have much to add other than the contents of this article.

You think with a 30% or 40% approval rating she is going to cause swing voters to actually vote for a candidate they would not have voted for without her influence? And realize we are talking about a vote 9 months from now, for people who would not be in office until about a year from now, who may or may not do what she wants them to do once in office.

If we started a list we would start with perhaps:
President
.
.
.
.
.
.
Governors
.
.
.
.
.
Oprah
.
.
.
.
.
CEO's of S&P 500 Companies
.
.
.
.
State elected officials
.
.
.
.
Simon Cowell
.
.
.
.
NCAA basketball refs.
.
.
.
Elected School Board members
.
.
.
.
IRS auditors
.
.
.
.
oh, I think I made my point.

Poll finds most Americans are unhappy with government - washingtonpost.com

not sure if you need a subscription to the washington post to chase this link....just in case: it outlines the results of a new cbs/washington post poll. here's the results concerning sarah palin:

I don't know if Palin would change anyone's minds, but she might get a lot of people to the polling places who would normally sit at home for midterms

First understand that I really like Palin and you could very easily take this the wrong way. But, Hanna Montana could get a lot of people to the polling places too, but so what? Her fans can't even vote. the people who support Palin are active anyway and already know who they would support and why. Again, my view is the liberals don't understand the Palin affect.

I hope you meant the Palin effect. The Palin affect (as in mood) is, in my opinion, a whiny henny-penny screechy frustrated ex-housewhore anti-woman thing. Certainly there aren't enough of same running around our country that she has a chance in hell of being elected? I mean, haven't we come a long way, baby?

I expected women to grow as evil as men as we scratched and clawed our way out of subjugation, I just never expected society as a whole to embrace evil in this way. Certainly we could have been a shining light, if in the lack of embrace, women could have truly found that peaceful strength that has defined our gender in so many ways. Sadly, evil women are just as tiresome and dangerous as evil men. Who knew?

Right wing populists who are not afraid to throw red meat to the base are not that new and not that inexplicable.

She's a media personality who had the good fortune to be picked for a presidential ticket. If Limbaugh or Beck ever decided to run for office they'd get similar ratings and support.

there's no mystery about the appeal for the poujadiste set of sarah palin. there's no mystery what kind of nonsense constitutes its ideological base.

Beck's latest conspiracy: Van Jones, Pelosi, The Coming Insurrection and the revolutionary "populist rebellion bomb" | Media Matters for America

listen to some of the delightful beck or limbaugh flights into dissociative reactionary fantasy on the right of the main page as well.
it's pretty stunning stuff.
and there's ALOT of such material floating about.

this kind of nonsense is not new.
it's not interesting. it's just another instance of that kind of populist-to-fascist nativist jank that's been a prominent part of the rightwing underbelly of american politics since the reconstruction period.

it is kinda frightening that it is even a remote possibility that these people will get into power.

in the interest of being nice, i'll say that the media conduit that feeds people toward a teabagging perspective neither accounts of the detail of everyone's worldview who is attracted to that perspective, nor does it have to. it's enough that it resonates.

but it's pretty funny that when folk who swing that way are challenged, they try to distance themselves from the media channels that are responsible for the "perspective" getting any exposure which is the condition of possibility for gaining any traction or currency.
so it's all reasonable, what i may think.
but the fact is that it resonates with what these people are doing and saying.

I am not clear on the correct word, but when I look up "affect" I got this:

Affect | Definition of Affect at Dictionary.com:

And for "effect":
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect

When wrote "Palin affect" what I meant was that the Palin phenomenon was an emotional response in the hearts and mind of those who support her, not that she has had any real influence or brought about any result on a national level. I did vote for McCain because of Palin, but he lost and other than that I simply root for her, I respect her, and we share common views. I will defend her because the attacks are dishonest and mean in my opinion.

ace, he's being pedantic. "effect" is a noun, "affect" is a verb. As a thing, a phenomenon, whatever, the correct term would be "Palin Effect"

Now, back to the thread...