Going Rogue

Small town/small state/small nation. Her solutions are centered around a small town look at the world...Listening to her it appears that she thinks in that mind set.

What exactly do you mean by "small town mindset"? That claim is meaningless unless you can qualify it. Why, specifically is a "small town mindset" a problem? What would be a better mindset in your view?

What substantive distinction is there between a "small state" or a large state that would necessitate a different approach to governing there; a different mindset? It is easy to draw an arbitrary distinction but can you show that it is more then arbitrary and is in fact relevant and substantive; can you demonstrate that it is something more then a red herring?
 
I don’t think that there is co-authorship credit on Going Rogue-is there? It looks like just Sarah Palin not even a “with”. The LOC/Publisher page certainly only lists Palin. (I just called)

I've already explained this. When you get time away from your long rants, you should really read it this time, instead of skimming/skipping it.

So, reasons I don’t think that Palin would make a good leader of the free world.

Small town/small state/small nation. Her solutions are centered around a small town look at the world, and it appears she believes that her small town solutions can be reworked to work for world power. She did that as governor, and only had some success because she was dealing with an extremely small state. I think as a governor of a large, diverse, and more complex state, such as New York or California she would have failed.. And certainly on a national level it would be disastrous. Listening to her it appears that she thinks in that mind set.
Yeah. New York or California. Good examples, considering they're both on the way to being failed states while being governed by liberals. Nice job of moving the goalposts. Tell me, do you think Obama could have governed California or New York, based on his extensive experience as a community agitator?

I think she would appear weak and naive to other world powers. Perhaps perception, perhaps some reality, but very bad. I think we were somewhat a victim of that on 9-11. Bush certainly wasn’t perceived as a world leader – I think he was tested. I think Palin would be as well.
Obama is considered a laughingstock by the rest of the world, especially after his apology tour. Next.

I don’t think she has much of a grasp of world history. You are destined to make the same mistakes if you don’t know about them.
Obama definitely doesn't. He's still perpetuating the failed Jimmy Carter Appease the World strategy. Next.

I don’t think she has a good concept of federal law. I really would wonder if she does understand legal ramifications of certain actions.
Give an example of this, please.

I don’t think of her as someone who would be willing to compromise. It is a hard lesson to learn, but most laws are ‘compromise’.
Yeah, because Obama is a paragon of bipartisanship.:rolleyes:

Do you know anything about how she got the natural gas pipelilne deal done?

Next.

The religion, abortion, gay rights, issues, etc. are all out there as well – however those are more ‘personal’ reasons in my case.
She has the exact same position on gay marriage as Obama. Next.

As far as bashing – yes, it is her viewpoint – without ‘equal’ time. It is bashing, because it is only her side of the story. From what little I have seen of the ‘bashing’ part she is quick to lay blame, but not quick to take responsibility.
You haven't even read this. Talk about swallowing talking points - why bother reading it, as Cal says. You're so myopic you couldn't possibly give her book a fair shake. I'll bet you haven't read one page, and somebody told you it was folksy.


I still think of her as a quitter (another reason not to embrace her as a political candidate) – she should have stuck it out. My opinion.
Which is wrongly based on nonfactual talking points fed to you by the left.
I think it did Alaska far more harm than good. She is an excellent spokesperson for Alaska. The wackiness of the lawsuits et al were dying down, and if she would have just worked hard – and not gone for the fame, she could have gotten her agenda through.
Wrong. They were just ramping up. She was nearly paralyzed with legal action and couldn't do any governing. Try and keep up.

The cult of Sarah could have been put on a back burner for 18 months, while she finished her job. However, I think she rather likes the cult of Sarah. Her and Obama do have something in common there.
Aw, it's a cult. How cute. And your blind obedience to "The Won" isn't? That's a laugh. Tell me, do you know how many times Obama voted 'Present?'

Hillary may have cried, but she is tough as nails. Strong people do cry Cal – it isn’t a sign of weakness.
Move those goalposts, why don't you. Hillary is a weakling. Had to beg Obie for campaign cash to pay off her debts. At least Sarah is earning hers.
 
I've already explained this. When you get time away from your long rants, you should really read it this time, instead of skimming/skipping it.

There isn't co-authorship credit - want to show it to me Foss - Cal claimed co-author - it certainly isn't registered that way.

Yeah. New York or California. Good examples, considering they're both on the way to being failed states while being governed by liberals. Nice job of moving the goalposts. Tell me, do you think Obama could have governed California or New York, based on his extensive experience as a community agitator?

Yep.

Obama is considered a laughingstock by the rest of the world, especially after his apology tour. Next.

Really - got quotes from those world leaders?

Obama definitely doesn't. He's still perpetuating the failed Jimmy Carter Appease the World strategy. Next.

Really - 30,000 troops to Afghanistan?

Give an example of this, please.

She is for a federal amendment that defines marriage - good luck with the constitutionality on that...

She has the exact same position on gay marriage as Obama. Next.

No she doesn't - see above -

You haven't even read this. Talk about swallowing talking points - why bother reading it, as Cal says. You're so myopic you couldn't possibly give her book a fair shake. I'll bet you haven't read one page, and somebody told you it was folksy.

Sorry - I have, again 30 pages or so. The first part deals with a visit to the state fair - and Palin talking with the people in the Right to Life booth - and talking points about the poster child for the group. There was a lot about her dissatisfaction with politics, however she also got in the little point she had an 85 (or something high like that) approval rating as governor. It was also at the state fair that McCain called her asking if she wanted to 'change history'.

Which is wrongly based on nonfactual talking points fed to you by the left.
Wrong. They were just ramping up. She was nearly paralyzed with legal action and couldn't do any governing. Try and keep up.

Really - 15 ethics complaints - small potatoes Foss...

Aw, it's a cult. How cute. And your blind obedience to "The Won" isn't? That's a laugh. Tell me, do you know how many times Obama voted 'Present?'

Move those goalposts, why don't you. Hillary is a weakling. Had to beg Obie for campaign cash to pay off her debts. At least Sarah is earning hers.

I have no blind obedience to Obama - I think he has been a somewhat so-so president to this point. He seems to be taking a long time finding his way around, and how to deal with the Hill. And yes, I know how many times he voted 'present', odd I also know what a vote like that means - something you can't seem to comprehend (this has been discussed previously).

Sarah has no campaign debt - duh... Sarah contributed nothing monetarily. I believe Hillary loaned her campaign about 13 million dollars - which she wasn't repaid, she has written it off.

Hillary couldn't take money from Obama's campaign - it is against the law. She can (and did) ask for help for fundraising from him, joint appeals and joint fundraisers, but she didn't get any money directly from his campaign - federal finance law prohibits that. Almost always the winning candidate offers to do whatever they can do legally to help pay down the debt of the losing candidate, Hillary asked for Obama's help fundraising so she could repay those who worked for her - not for her debt.

And Hillary is not weak.
 
What exactly do you mean by "small town mindset"? That claim is meaningless unless you can qualify it. Why, specifically is a "small town mindset" a problem? What would be a better mindset in your view?

What substantive distinction is there between a "small state" or a large state that would necessitate a different approach to governing there; a different mindset? It is easy to draw an arbitrary distinction but can you show that it is more then arbitrary and is in fact relevant and substantive; can you demonstrate that it is something more then a red herring?

Can you govern Sweden the same that you govern the US? Can you govern Saudi Arabia the same way you govern China? Fundamental rights don't change - but sheer scope of size does change how you rule, and the position you take in the world hierarchy. And the type of policy that gets enacted.

And shag - you don't understand small town mindset?
 
....there's so much to respond to, but I think the small mind set should be addressed first?

Foxpaws, you were a supporter of Bill Clinton . What kind of mindset did he have?

Clinton was from born and raised in Arkansas.
Prior to being President, he spent his entire adult life in Arkansas politics, ultimately becoming Governor of Arkansas, the youngest governor in the country....then ex-governor..and then governor again.

So what is this "small town mindset" you're talking about.
Is it because Clinton went to an Ivy league school that exempts him from this "mindset" that you're critical of?

Do people from the middle of the country or up North, those who didn't go to ivy league schools, lack the sophistication necessary to be President? Is that a position reserved for well indoctrinated Yale and Harvard crowd alone?
 
Your avatar belies your dishonest words.

really? read careful. NO GODS. plural. if i know christianity, it's about 1 god. well, actually 2 i guess. fine. your right.
although there have been hundreds in known history.
 
There isn't co-authorship credit - want to show it to me Foss - Cal claimed co-author - it certainly isn't registered that way.

I'm not defending his claim, I'm refuting your claim of a ghost writer. Try and keep up.

Naive.

Really - got quotes from those world leaders?
Yep. How many will suffice?
Really - 30,000 troops to Afghanistan?
Really? Considering the GENERAL ON THE GROUND requested more, and it took Obama over 100 days to 'dither?'
She is for a federal amendment that defines marriage - good luck with the constitutionality on that...
ZZZZZ...Obama is for a healthcare plan that FORCES people to buy something whether they want it or not.

Really - 15 ethics complaints - small potatoes Foss...
Really - moving the goalposts - how many have you had?

I have no blind obedience to Obama - I think he has been a somewhat so-so president to this point. He seems to be taking a long time finding his way around, and how to deal with the Hill. And yes, I know how many times he voted 'present', odd I also know what a vote like that means - something you can't seem to comprehend (this has been discussed previously).
It means he doesn't take a stand on the issue. Period.

Sarah has no campaign debt - duh... Sarah contributed nothing monetarily. I believe Hillary loaned her campaign about 13 million dollars - which she wasn't repaid, she has written it off.
See my thread about Mark Penn. You FAIL.
Hillary couldn't take money from Obama's campaign - it is against the law. She can (and did) ask for help for fundraising from him, joint appeals and joint fundraisers, but she didn't get any money directly from his campaign - federal finance law prohibits that. Almost always the winning candidate offers to do whatever they can do legally to help pay down the debt of the losing candidate, Hillary asked for Obama's help fundraising so she could repay those who worked for her - not for her debt.
Since when does illegality stop a Democrat?

And Hillary is not weak.
Yes she is. I guess we disagree, but you certainly haven't made any progress in proving that point.
 
really? read careful. NO GODS. plural. if i know christianity, it's about 1 god. well, actually 2 i guess. fine. your right.
although there have been hundreds in known history.
Actually, based on the context of your many posts, your interpretation would be - NO GODS. PERIOD. Nice try backpedaling, though.

Back to your bridge, troll, you're off topic.
 
Explain it to me. Specifically, what is it about that mindset that makes it incapable of governing on a larger scale?
She won't answer. She only thinks it's cool to ask you if you know what it is, so she can mock you for not knowing. As if she even knows. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not defending his claim, I'm refuting your claim of a ghost writer. Try and keep up.

Are you saying that there wasn't a ghost writer now? I am trying to keep up - and I very specifically addressed Cal when I talked about the co-authorship detail. So, what are you exactly claiming regarding a ghost writer Foss?

Yep. How many will suffice?

Your quote from Sarkozy is from October of last year - he has since praised Obama - some say 'gushing' -

Got more like that one Foss?

Really? Considering the GENERAL ON THE GROUND requested more, and it took Obama over 100 days to 'dither?'
I would rather Obama take his time - and create a true plan with his generals than commit troops without any idea of what you do when you get there. We have been there, done that with Bush, we don't need to do it again. At least the man has learned from history.

ZZZZZ...Obama is for a healthcare plan that FORCES people to buy something whether they want it or not.

The government has forced people to do things for a long time - and they have stood the constitutionality test... I will be interested to see if the 'must have insurance' part will. I actually hope it doesn't, but it is at least a gray area. Federally defining marriage isn't a gray area - it is unconstitutional.

Really - moving the goalposts - how many have you had?

I haven't had any lawsuits against me Foss... heck - did you know that there was a suit filed against President Reagan by God... believe me, once you get to the big game - there are a ton of lawsuits filed all the time. If she can't handle these, it will be difficult for her to move into a more national role.

It means he doesn't take a stand on the issue. Period.

Usually it means that the elected official agrees with the original bill, but isn't comfortable with the 'amendments' that have tacked on. Sort of like wanting a bill to go through congress - but you can't back all the pork that gets tagged onto it.

See my thread about Mark Penn. You FAIL.
Since when does illegality stop a Democrat?

Since illegality has stopped Republicans Foss...;)

Since no money came from Obama's campaign to pay Hillary's debts. Penn may have been given a contract from the government - I am not sure how that contract was awarded. His firm has gotten contracts in the past, this might be similar to those.

Yes she is. I guess we disagree, but you certainly haven't made any progress in proving that point.

And you have posted a clip of her crying. Nice proof...
 
wow - I have opened a can of worms with this one... 'small town mindset'

You don't have to be from a small town to have a small town mindset - I know people from LA who have a small town mindset... I know people who went to Yale who have a small town mindset. I know people who live in towns that have less than 3,000 who don't have small town mindset, along with people who barely graduated from high school who don't have small town mindset. So it isn't about people from a certain part of the country, or from certain sized towns, or with certain types of education - Do you have that part? It doesn't define where you are from, your education...

So, let's start with something - I asked shag this:

Can you govern Sweden the same that you govern the US? Can you govern Saudi Arabia the same way you govern China? Fundamental rights don't change - but sheer scope of size does change how you rule, and the position you take in the world hierarchy. And the type of policy that gets enacted.

So, do you think you can govern all people in all areas of the world exactly the same?
 
I believe Hillary loaned her campaign about 13 million dollars - which she wasn't repaid, she has written it off.

What a bald-faced lie! Come on, you can do better than that. Show me her tax statements where she wrote it off.

And this crap about Obama writing his speeches; that is b.s. too.

In 2009 Jon Favreau was named a White House Staff member and given the position of “Director of Speechwriting” for Obama. You sooo totally fail again.

You really want to sit and tell us all how great Obama is and how he writes his speeches and all that?

I say you are a paid propagandist for the Obama administration.

I’ve had enough. Gonna take a break from all this. Bye.
 
What a bald-faced lie! Come on, you can do better than that. Show me her tax statements where she wrote it off.

From CBS

And this crap about Obama writing his speeches; that is b.s. too.

In 2009 Jon Favreau was named a White House Staff member and given the position of “Director of Speechwriting” for Obama. You sooo totally fail again.

You really want to sit and tell us all how great Obama is and how he writes his speeches and all that?

I say you are a paid propagandist for the Obama administration.

I’ve had enough. Gonna take a break from all this. Bye.

hummm- I don't think I have claimed Obama writes his speeches - I don't know if he does or doesn't MM - Wow - paid propagandist that might reach a dozen people - really?
 
hummm- I don't think I have claimed Obama writes his speeches

I'll leave you with these two thoughts because my head exploded and I have to pick up all the brain matter.

But, weren't you all over Obama for 'supposedly' having a ghost writer - that it was somehow bad? I doubt if he did - once again no paper trail

You doubt Obama had a ghost writer. Guess that means you think he wrote the stuff himself. Same as for his speeches. That Obama has all this time in between golf and basketball to write these earth-moving speeches. Cowdung.

Lastly...

This sums up my feelings of Obama the best way I could ever express them... Have fun. Just burnt out seeing this Country go in the crapper along with my kids future.

A TWAP IS A MALADJUSTED ZERO

by Bridgette
“A Celebration of the Most Vacuous Campaign and Presidency in American History” is the headline on the website where a photo of this poster was found.

Los Angeles, the home of the Obama White Face Poster is again a happening place for an outspoken and anonymous artist. Posters on billboards are popping up all over LA. All the Who’s from Whoville are involved: Who designed it? Who is plastering these posters all over town? Who is printing them? Then there are the what’s. What does the poster suggest? And finally, what does “TWAP” mean?

Obama is seen as a Medieval Court Jester with the label of “TWAP”. The artist doesn’t define TWAP, so no one except for him or her knows the meaning of TWAP. One can certainly see that the artist shows his displeasure and discontent with the inexperienced usurper in Our House.
While Obama is seen as a jester because of the hat he wears, other names such as joker, jokester, fool, clown, comedian, entertainer, comic, prankster, and buffoon are a few other applicable plays on the word jester. Defining their commonalities, these characters are out to entertain, trick, hoodwink, dupe, con, deceive, bamboozle or pull the wool over our eyes. These various job descriptions seem most appropriate and fitting for the poser on the poster.

Let’s look at a little history of Jesters. In medieval times, British and European monarchies employed these talented people to entertain the king, queen, their court, and guests. Most jesters would use music, juggling, clowning, story and riddle telling, to entertain their royal masters. The fool enjoyed some status among a royal household, but not much. Most often he was considered the lowest of the low within the courts hierarchy. Oft times, he was the one to deliver news to the king that others were afraid to do for fear of being killed or thrown into a dungeon. Without real status in the royal household, sometimes the king used the jester as a sounding board when he had a difficult decision to make. The jester was perceived as having no ambition to overthrow the king, so he could be trusted during those times.

Jesters usually wore brightly colored, often gaudy, costumes with hats. One such costume was a coat adorned with a donkey’s tail, and a hood decorated with an ass’s ears. The identifiable jester hats were made of cloth and were triangular in shape with three points trimmed with jingle bells. According to Wiki, this hat also represented the donkey’s ears and tail. Perhaps the artist thought that the yellow and orange hat was suitable to represent both the hat wearer and the Democratic party. Our jester in chief does seem lacking, and the ass hat analogy certainly fits. One might go a step further and say that the majority party are a group of Jack’s. Then again, my interpretation might be wrong. Instead of seeing a jester in the poster, perhaps it is a fool.

Jesters were also called fools by their masters and others. The root of the word “fool” is from the Latin word “follis” that means “Bag of Wind” or that which contains air or breath. (Now we’re getting somewhere!).

In Tarot cards, the Fool is often shown as a man dancing along a mountain side with a dog nipping at his heels egging him on. The fool is totally oblivious to the cliff being there, and it looks like he will dance right off the edge ending in his demise. When I interpret the Fool in a reading, he is seen as one who sees not ahead or behind, nor what he is doing or where he is going. In other words, it is a card depicting pure folly with looming, far-reaching, disastrous consequences ahead. Thus far, if I am analyzing this correctly, the poster depicts a donkey eared clown who is a bag of wind that doesn’t know what he is doing. Do you think I am evaluating this correctly?

Also in the tarot, the Fool card is signified by the number 0. Mathematically, zero plus any number equals zero, and zero multiplied by anything also equals zero. Easily, we can see that Zero is nothing and can never be anything but zero. No matter what is added to it, the result will always be the same, zero. In other words, Zero has no substance. I think this is all adding up.

Just to be sure my calculations or definitions are correct, Wiki , the well known website, was consulted for their expert judgment on the subject of zero. “As a digit, 0 is used as a place holder.” Okay, that works, zero is holding onto and is in possession of our place. In our English language “0″ can be called zero, oh, null, nil, or nought, depending on the context. Well, I certainly think this sums it up. The big Oh is really a zero, null and nill. I could not have said it better.

Surprisingly, The Urban Dictionary contains six definitions of TWAP. The highest one rated by its users was that TWAP is an acronym for “The Worst American President “. They even used the word in a sentence, “Obama is a TWAP”.

Therefore, using the above definitions, symbolism and interpretations, the following is most likely a true and simple analysis of the TWAP poster. Obviously, the poster depicts a maladjusted jester who is a donkey-eared bag of wind who doesn’t know what the heck he is doing. His talent lies in being a consummate liar and story teller. He lives up to those job descriptions by using trickery, duping, conning, deceiving, and fabricating. Eventually, he might go off the deep end, and may even end up in a dungeon. Moreover, he is a fool whose talent is laughable, and who will never add up to anything other than zero. He is considered null, nil and nought. Finally, the pompous, arrogant jester is a TWAP!

The game of “TWAP” begins. What do you think TWAP means?
 
hummm- I don't think I have claimed Obama writes his speeches

I'll leave you with these two thoughts because my head exploded and I have to pick up all the brain matter.

But, weren't you all over Obama for 'supposedly' having a ghost writer - that it was somehow bad? I doubt if he did - once again no paper trail

You doubt Obama had a ghost writer? Guess that means you think he wrote the stuff himself. Same as for his speeches. That Obama has all this time in between golf and basketball to write these earth-moving speeches. Cowdung.

Lastly...

This sums up my feelings of Obama the best way I could ever express them... Have fun. Just burnt out seeing this Country go in the crapper along with my kids future.

A TWAP IS A MALADJUSTED ZERO

by Bridgette
“A Celebration of the Most Vacuous Campaign and Presidency in American History” is the headline on the website where a photo of this poster was found.

Los Angeles, the home of the Obama White Face Poster is again a happening place for an outspoken and anonymous artist. Posters on billboards are popping up all over LA. All the Who’s from Whoville are involved: Who designed it? Who is plastering these posters all over town? Who is printing them? Then there are the what’s. What does the poster suggest? And finally, what does “TWAP” mean?

Obama is seen as a Medieval Court Jester with the label of “TWAP”. The artist doesn’t define TWAP, so no one except for him or her knows the meaning of TWAP. One can certainly see that the artist shows his displeasure and discontent with the inexperienced usurper in Our House.
While Obama is seen as a jester because of the hat he wears, other names such as joker, jokester, fool, clown, comedian, entertainer, comic, prankster, and buffoon are a few other applicable plays on the word jester. Defining their commonalities, these characters are out to entertain, trick, hoodwink, dupe, con, deceive, bamboozle or pull the wool over our eyes. These various job descriptions seem most appropriate and fitting for the poser on the poster.

Let’s look at a little history of Jesters. In medieval times, British and European monarchies employed these talented people to entertain the king, queen, their court, and guests. Most jesters would use music, juggling, clowning, story and riddle telling, to entertain their royal masters. The fool enjoyed some status among a royal household, but not much. Most often he was considered the lowest of the low within the courts hierarchy. Oft times, he was the one to deliver news to the king that others were afraid to do for fear of being killed or thrown into a dungeon. Without real status in the royal household, sometimes the king used the jester as a sounding board when he had a difficult decision to make. The jester was perceived as having no ambition to overthrow the king, so he could be trusted during those times.

Jesters usually wore brightly colored, often gaudy, costumes with hats. One such costume was a coat adorned with a donkey’s tail, and a hood decorated with an ass’s ears. The identifiable jester hats were made of cloth and were triangular in shape with three points trimmed with jingle bells. According to Wiki, this hat also represented the donkey’s ears and tail. Perhaps the artist thought that the yellow and orange hat was suitable to represent both the hat wearer and the Democratic party. Our jester in chief does seem lacking, and the ass hat analogy certainly fits. One might go a step further and say that the majority party are a group of Jack’s. Then again, my interpretation might be wrong. Instead of seeing a jester in the poster, perhaps it is a fool.

Jesters were also called fools by their masters and others. The root of the word “fool” is from the Latin word “follis” that means “Bag of Wind” or that which contains air or breath. (Now we’re getting somewhere!).

In Tarot cards, the Fool is often shown as a man dancing along a mountain side with a dog nipping at his heels egging him on. The fool is totally oblivious to the cliff being there, and it looks like he will dance right off the edge ending in his demise. When I interpret the Fool in a reading, he is seen as one who sees not ahead or behind, nor what he is doing or where he is going. In other words, it is a card depicting pure folly with looming, far-reaching, disastrous consequences ahead. Thus far, if I am analyzing this correctly, the poster depicts a donkey eared clown who is a bag of wind that doesn’t know what he is doing. Do you think I am evaluating this correctly?

Also in the tarot, the Fool card is signified by the number 0. Mathematically, zero plus any number equals zero, and zero multiplied by anything also equals zero. Easily, we can see that Zero is nothing and can never be anything but zero. No matter what is added to it, the result will always be the same, zero. In other words, Zero has no substance. I think this is all adding up.

Just to be sure my calculations or definitions are correct, Wiki , the well known website, was consulted for their expert judgment on the subject of zero. “As a digit, 0 is used as a place holder.” Okay, that works, zero is holding onto and is in possession of our place. In our English language “0″ can be called zero, oh, null, nil, or nought, depending on the context. Well, I certainly think this sums it up. The big Oh is really a zero, null and nill. I could not have said it better.

Surprisingly, The Urban Dictionary contains six definitions of TWAP. The highest one rated by its users was that TWAP is an acronym for “The Worst American President “. They even used the word in a sentence, “Obama is a TWAP”.

Therefore, using the above definitions, symbolism and interpretations, the following is most likely a true and simple analysis of the TWAP poster. Obviously, the poster depicts a maladjusted jester who is a donkey-eared bag of wind who doesn’t know what the heck he is doing. His talent lies in being a consummate liar and story teller. He lives up to those job descriptions by using trickery, duping, conning, deceiving, and fabricating. Eventually, he might go off the deep end, and may even end up in a dungeon. Moreover, he is a fool whose talent is laughable, and who will never add up to anything other than zero. He is considered null, nil and nought. Finally, the pompous, arrogant jester is a TWAP!

The game of “TWAP” begins. What do you think TWAP means?

twap.jpg
 
I'll leave you with these two thoughts because my head exploded and I have to pick up all the brain matter.

You doubt Obama had a ghost writer? Guess that means you think he wrote the stuff himself. Same as for his speeches. That Obama has all this time in between golf and basketball to write these earth-moving speeches. Cowdung.

I don't think Obama did - he had editors - yes, but I don't think on his first book he had a ghost writer... He could have, but, I haven't seen anything that really points in that direction

And there is a huge difference between writing speeches when you are under the time constraints of being president and writing a book over time. Many presidents don't write their speeches at all, some write only the 'important' ones, others take speeches written for them and red line them to the point that you are looking a nothing but a sea of red. I don't know what Obama does as far as his speech writing. Reagan wrote most of his speeches, especially early in his career. In the latter part of his presidency you can see the hand of a speech writer in more of his speeches. They 'sound' different. Clinton wrote what he thought were going to be 'important' speeches - he ran them by many people - but, those were his words. Lesser speeches were delegated. I don't know about Bush - his speeches often seemed written for him.

Glad you were able to get the Twap photo in on the second posting MM

And that I was able to clear up that little bit about Hillary's debt...

Oh, don't worry about all those brain cells - the question is - where they being used anyway? ;) (just being silly here - I couldn't resist...)
 
So, let's start with something - I asked shag this:

Can you govern Sweden the same that you govern the US? Can you govern Saudi Arabia the same way you govern China? Fundamental rights don't change - but sheer scope of size does change how you rule, and the position you take in the world hierarchy. And the type of policy that gets enacted.

So, do you think you can govern all people in all areas of the world exactly the same?

No, let's not start with that. I asked a question to start all this off and you have yet to answer it. Instead you dodged with another question.

Besides, your "question" re-focuses the debate. We were not talking about a governing "approach" but a mindset which you implied made Palin incapable of governing on a large scale. If you cannot show how that mindset prevents her being able to govern on a larger scale, then your claim is nothing more then sophistry.

BTW, an arrogant elitist outlook is also not dependent on education or where you were raised. I know plenty of people without any college education who have an elitist outlook.
 
No, let's not start with that. I asked a question to start all this off and you have yet to answer it. Instead you dodged with another question.

Besides, your "question" re-focuses the debate. We were not talking about a governing "approach" but a mindset which you implied made Palin incapable of governing on a large scale. If you cannot show how that mindset prevents her being able to govern on a larger scale, then your claim is nothing more then sophistry.

BTW, an arrogant elitist outlook is also not dependent on education or where you were raised. I know plenty of people without any college education who have an elitist outlook.

No - it doesn't refocus the debate Shag - it helps define what small town mindset is. Since Cal was all over the idea that it might have to do with geographical location or education I needed to clear that up, that it doesn't - and we also need to clear up if you realize you can't govern all areas of the world in the same manner - I have trying to help define some parameters here. In the context I used it with Palin it does deal with how I believe she would govern. We were talking about why I don't think she would make a good president. One of the reasons is because I think she would govern with a small town mindset.

So, do you think you can govern all areas of the world exactly the same? That is a question that deals with governing with a small town mindset...
 
No - it doesn't refocus the debate Shag - it helps define what small town mindset is.

Your question blurs the distinction between an "approach" and a "mindset"; falsely equating the two. The same mindset can (and usually does) apply different approaches to different situations. Your question assumes it applies the same approach to different situation (otherwise, no inference can be drawn about a "mindset" by your question).

You are dodging again. If you can't answer the question then you pretty well confirm that your point is mere elitist smearing.

Both Cal and I have asked you the same thing and you have dodged the question; what, specifically, do you mean by a "small town mindset"? What qualities make it up and what, specifically, prevents it from being able to govern on a large scale?
 
Your question blurs the distinction between an "approach" and a "mindset"; falsely equating the two. The same mindset can (and usually does) apply different approaches to different situations. Your question assumes it applies the same approach to different situation (otherwise, no inference can be drawn about a "mindset" by your question).

You are dodging again. If you can't answer the question then you pretty well confirm that your point is mere elitist smearing.

Both Cal and I have asked you the same thing and you have dodged the question; what, specifically, do you mean by a "small town mindset"? What qualities make it up and what, specifically, prevents it from being able to govern on a large scale?

So, would it be ok with your "oh look, she is being an elitist" labeling self, shag, if I deal with small town mindset as it pertains to governing a country? It is of no consequence if Palin has small town mindset regarding buying shoes...

And once again it has nothing to do with where you are from or what your education is - got that?????
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, would it be ok with your "oh look, she is being an elitist" labeling self, shag, if I deal with small town mindset as it pertains to governing a country? It is of no consequence if Palin has small town mindset regarding buying shoes...

And once again it has nothing to do with where you are from or what your education is - got that?????

What, specifically do you mean by "small town mindset"?

Quit dodging and answer the question, please...
 
I told you she wouldn't answer it.

She blurted it out as a slight to (folksy) Palin and now she realizes she can't back it up.
 
Are you saying that there wasn't a ghost writer now? I am trying to keep up - and I very specifically addressed Cal when I talked about the co-authorship detail. So, what are you exactly claiming regarding a ghost writer Foss?

Again, go back and read. Clearly you're stalling, trying to make me repeat myself. Not gonna happen. You're a waste of time.


Your quote from Sarkozy is from October of last year - he has since praised Obama - some say 'gushing' -

Got more like that one Foss?
Moving the goalposts again.


I would rather Obama take his time - and create a true plan with his generals than commit troops without any idea of what you do when you get there. We have been there, done that with Bush, we don't need to do it again. At least the man has learned from history.
You're really a moron, aren't you? First, Bush's surge PROVED that more troops would be successful, DESPITE Obama's VERBAL OPPOSITION AND PREDICTION THAT THE SURGE WOULD FAIL.

Second, McChrystal said he needed the troops NOW - and Obama didn't want to make a decision because he wanted to pass his stupid healthcare takeover and didn't want to piss off his base. Try and keep up.

The government has forced people to do things for a long time - and they have stood the constitutionality test... I will be interested to see if the 'must have insurance' part will. I actually hope it doesn't, but it is at least a gray area. Federally defining marriage isn't a gray area - it is unconstitutional.
Blah blah blah...Dodging the issue. Your boy Obama is a statist and he's clearly pushing an unconstitutional bill. This latest blah from you doesn't mean anything.

I haven't had any lawsuits against me Foss... heck - did you know that there was a suit filed against President Reagan by God... believe me, once you get to the big game - there are a ton of lawsuits filed all the time. If she can't handle these, it will be difficult for her to move into a more national role.
Uh huh. You can't file frivolous lawsuits against the President like you can according to Alaska law. There's a provision that allows the governor to be sued for anything. Try and keep up.

Usually it means that the elected official agrees with the original bill, but isn't comfortable with the 'amendments' that have tacked on. Sort of like wanting a bill to go through congress - but you can't back all the pork that gets tagged onto it.
Well he was uncomfortable over 100 times in his SHORT tenure. What it left him with was NO voting record.

Since illegality has stopped Republicans Foss...;)
Weak.
Since no money came from Obama's campaign to pay Hillary's debts. Penn may have been given a contract from the government - I am not sure how that contract was awarded. His firm has gotten contracts in the past, this might be similar to those.
Not good at connecting dots, are you? Or is it a case of denial + myopia? :rolleyes:

And you have posted a clip of her crying. Nice proof...
No, I didn't. But it's good evidence, far more than you've done, Miss Proof by Assertion. :rolleyes:
 
The government has forced people to do things for a long time - and they have stood the constitutionality test... I will be interested to see if the 'must have insurance' part will. I actually hope it doesn't, but it is at least a gray area. Federally defining marriage isn't a gray area - it is unconstitutional.

Federally defining marriage through a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is unconstitutional?!

Also, can you name some things that the government forces people to do that have stood the "constitutionality test"? What do you consider to be the "constitutionality test"?

Also, can you show me how the individual mandate in the healthcare bill is somehow in a "gray area" as to it's constitutionality?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top