Jump to content

The Next President of the USA will be?

TULedHead

By TULedHead
in Ramble On

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3

Recommended Posts

zepyep

zepyep

Posted
Posted
I don't fear her. Why should I? She's no different than all the other Fundie nutjobs in this country (I live amongst them) and I'm not scared of them. Hell, my next door neighbor is a Pentecostal preacher. The snake-handling, speaking in tongues, rolling around on the floor flailing type. That shit just makes me laugh, not cower in the corner in fear. Give me a damn break.

Can we wrassle over it?Please,I will make the Jell-O

KB :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Del Zeppnile

Del Zeppnile

Posted
Posted
I probably don't qualify as a member of the 'radical left', but yeah, that kinda sums it up. I watched some interviews with her... she does seem able to memorize her lines and spit out the properly assigned response, and once in awhile it was related to the question. It usually didn't answer the question, but that's pretty much to be expected of all of them, not just her.

And that is a fair assessment Lakey. Some people have tried to make a big deal out Charlie Gibson's question about what Palin said regarding the possibility of Israel using force to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat. Gibson asked the same question three times, and Palin gave the correct answer, which is not to say either way what the United States' response to that hypothetical would be. Other than of course that we recognize Israel's right to determine any military response that it feels is necessary in the face of an imminent nuclear threat from Iran.

Some people accused her of avoiding the question, but I would expect Obama and Biden to give the exact same answer. We never tell the enemy what our specific response is going to be other than we reserve the right to leave all options available to us and our allies. Palin showed very good wisdom in not falling for Gibson's trap on that one.

The other question that was a trap was the one about how Palin felt about the so called 'Bush Doctrine' but Palin didn't fall for it. When asked by Gibson if she agreed with the 'Bush Doctine', Sarah said,"In what respect do you mean?" Then Gibson acted annoyed and after making her look like she did not know the answer (although who does know the answer to such an ambiguous question), Gibson then finally decides to define the so called 'Bush Doctrine' as "the right to anticipatory defense."

What the hell is that? Did Gibson just make that up out of thin air? I never heard of a 'Bush Doctrine' like that before. In fact, other than the Monroe Doctrine and the Truman Doctrine, I don't recall any President since then having made such a stated 'doctrine' or any other such as that.

I guess Gibson thought he had got her, and I do think that she could have made a more forecful response aimed at knocking Gibson's silly question out of the ring. But of course she was a bit nervous I suppose, and of course she doesn't have my THUNDERCHIEF credentials... yet. :lol:

I probably would have told Gibson: Well, I would not characterize George Bush's policy to oppose terrorism the way you have defined it, but I do agree with him for seeking to support any friend and oppose any foe in the common defense of this nation and those of our allies and freinds in the war on terrorism. And that I further congratulate George Bush for drawing a clear distinction for which nations, both freedom loving and those who support terrorism, to clearly know where that line is drawn, and act accordingly. Kind of like Libya as elected to do.

And then I would have turned it around on Gibson and asked him (based on his defintion of a so called 'Bush Doctrine') how that definition applied to North Korea? Where Bush clearly sought the participation of several nations including China and Japan to oppose North Korea and it's nuclear threat there? Given Gibson's silly definition, why didn't that so called doctrine cause Bush to act the way Gibson said he would? Obviously that definition is not correct, and again Palin was correct to ignore it's false permise.

I am glad to see Del acknowledge the existence of the glass ceiling.

So can we count on your vote you gun toting white woman from rural America?

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Del Zeppnile

Del Zeppnile

Posted
Posted
To be qualified to be VP, one has to be qualified to be POTUS.

So the real question is: How do you figure that she's qualified to be POTUS?

The VP is not some political garnish.. or tasty, sexy side dish.

The VP is a presidential insurance policy.

So please tell me: what makes Sarah Palin qualified to be POTUS?

Remember,.. she herself cites the fact that Russia and Alaska are in geographical

proximity to each other as being indicative of her having foreign affairs experience.

She'd be next in line to be POTUS, and she offers THAT as her foreign affairs credentials? :blink:

..and you're actually buying that as a sufficient foreign affairs qualifications? :unsure:

And prior to four days ago she had no idea what "the Bush doctrine" is.

dude. come on.

fyi..

Bill Richardson. Now there's a governor with a boatload of foreign affairs experience!

Christine Gregoire. Now there's a governor with substantial executive/budgetary experience!

No doubt. I'm not suggesting that Palin is unqualified because she's been a governor. Being governor can be a great stepping stone to becoming POTUS. What I'm saying is that she's not ready to fulfill the single most important function of the VP: stepping in as POTUS should the president die or become incapacitated. Being governor of Alaska for as short a time as she has., does not in and of itself qualify her to be POTUS.

Her political career consists of her having gone from being PTA member to mayor of Podunk to half-term (so far) governor of the US state with the 47th smallest population of all the states. There are many US cities that have bigger populations, bigger annual budgets, and bigger public service administrations than Alaska has. She has executive experience, yes; but that gubernatorial executive experience is relatively small-time as far as gubernatorial executive experience goes.

Palin's gubernatorial executive experience alone does not

qualify her to be POTUS. So then, once again, the question is:

what is it that qualifies Sarah Palin to be POTUS?? :whistling:

Look,.. I don't doubt that she has potential, but she's clearly not ready to step in as POTUS on 'day two' should John McCain.. a 72yr-old old man with a history of cancer.. become incapacitated the day after being inaugurated.

Granted. But if she's POTUS, are you suggesting that the buck

will stop with her 'team of advisors' rather than with her? :whistling:

I've yet to hear anyone from the right put forth a substantive case for her being qualified to

be POTUS. I've put forth a substantive case for why she's NOT (yet) qualified to be POTUS.

If you think questioning her qualifications to be POTUS is nothing but

"mere rhetoric",.. well, with all due respect friend,.. you're being foolish.

..imho. ;)

Thanks. I hear ya! We're fortunate to be living in this beautiful part of the country, huh?!

Fyi.. it's as beautiful below the water as it is above, bro. ;)

:beer:

[btw.. I was just needling you with the Christine Gregoire comment. :P:D ]

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

She's qualified, and if she turns out to be the most significant factor that pushes McCain across the finish line ahead of the Obama, she will also have been the correct political choice. Let's not forget that this ia political campaign. There is nothing in the rules that says McCain needs the opposition party's advise and consent before selecting his VP choice.

Please spare us the drama One Drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Del Zeppnile

Del Zeppnile

Posted
Posted
"Did Gibson just make that up out of thin air?"

:lol:

Puh-lease. :rolleyes:

You're going to such great lengths to defend Sarah Palin that you're

even willing to say that YOU didn't know what 'the Bush doctrine' is?

Wow. Such uncharacteristic chivalry on your part, Del.

Falling on your own sword.. defending the honor of your Queen-mom, eh? :unsure:

Anyone who's been paying any political attention since the invasion of Iraq knows that the "Bush doctrine" is George Bush's belief/policy that America has the right to pre-emptively strike any nation that he thinks poses a threat to America or that he thinks has so much as a thought of someday developing weapons with which to someday pose a threat to America. Everyone knows that.

Well.. everyone except you and Sarah, apparently. :P

You're losing your edge, Delbert.

Keep up with the doctrines, bud! ^_^

:beer:

And you will provide us with where Bush has stated that to be his doctrine?

Given the ambiguity of Gibson's reasoning, I suppose the 'Clinton Doctrine' was to bang every woman within ten feet.... I mean three inches of his crotch. :lol:

But maybe this was Bush's so called doctine as he stated in his second inaugural speech:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Nope, can't find anything about 'right to anticipatory self defense' in any of Bush's statements. I'm sure Gibson got that definition off of some liberal blog or some bloviating legal scholar from one of any number of statist universities.

Maybe Gibson was confusing something Bush said with JFK's inaugural speech:

" Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty"

Maybe that was the one about "anticpatory self defence?"

Anyway doesn't matter. Sarah Palin is going to be the VP and there ain't nothing going to stop her now.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lake of Shadows

Lake of Shadows

Posted
Posted

I probably don't qualify as a member of the 'radical left', but yeah, that kinda sums it up. I watched some interviews with her... she does seem able to memorize her lines and spit out the properly assigned response, and once in awhile it was related to the question. It usually didn't answer the question, but that's pretty much to be expected of all of them, not just her.

I am glad to see Del acknowledge the existence of the glass ceiling.

And that is a fair assessment Lakey. Some people have tried to make a big deal out Charlie Gibson's question about what Palin said regarding the possibility of Israel using force to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat. Gibson asked the same question three times, and Palin gave the correct answer, which is not to say either way what the United States' response to that hypothetical would be. Other than of course that we recognize Israel's right to determine any military response that it feels is necessary in the face of an imminent nuclear threat from Iran.

:lol: You do realize don't you, that the 'yeah, that about sums it up' was in response to Suz' comment, not yours. *snerk* Granted, I did qualify things a bit, but my 'fair assessment' as you called it wasn't particularly kind to Palin. I don't actually think she's stupid, but I don't think she's exactly a star either.

Yes, she seems to have 'energized' the Republican Party's campaign, and that's to be expected. If you have some kinda boring old guy slogging about, what better way to get the juices flowing and feel "energized" than to get someone who is idealogically suitable, quite attractive, and female. Hell, that's hitting the trifecta. Men like the eye candy aspect as well as the fact that she can hunt...( oh baby, can I touch your... moose gun...). She can seem like 'one of the guys' while definitely not looking like one. Women like the 'break through the glass ceiling', holdin' her own, aspect, and both will like the conservative values she seems to possess. So, yeah, she's energized the campaign... and now in the next several weeks, we'll get to see if she's like the Energizer bunny or if the campaign will withstand the stall when/if the batteries run low.

Do I think she's "qualified"? Hell if I know...

I do know that Cindy McCain will drive me up a friggin' tree if I have to listen to her go on about something... and on... and on... but she's not the candidate, so hopefully I can just tune her out.

So can we count on your vote you gun toting white woman from rural America?

:lol:

Well... lemme put it this way... you can count on the fact that I WILL vote. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Del Zeppnile

Del Zeppnile

Posted
Posted
:lol: You do realize don't you, that the 'yeah, that about sums it up' was in response to Suz' comment, not yours. *snerk* Granted, I did qualify things a bit, but my 'fair assessment' as you called it wasn't particularly kind to Palin. I don't actually think she's stupid, but I don't think she's exactly a star either.

Yeah I got the jab, I just chose to ignore it. I have learned that doing that works too sometimes :lol:

Yes, she seems to have 'energized' the Republican Party's campaign, and that's to be expected. If you have some kinda boring old guy slogging about, what better way to get the juices flowing and feel "energized" than to get someone who is idealogically suitable, quite attractive, and female. Hell, that's hitting the trifecta. Men like the eye candy aspect as well as the fact that she can hunt...( oh baby, can I touch your... moose gun...). She can seem like 'one of the guys' while definitely not looking like one.

I'll bet she can even shoot well from a horse.. (still not looking better to you you old horse gal?)

Women like the 'break through the glass ceiling', holdin' her own, aspect, and both will like the conservative values she seems to possess. So, yeah, she's energized the campaign... and now in the next several weeks, we'll get to see if she's like the Energizer bunny or if the campaign will withstand the stall when/if the batteries run low.

Looking at the size of her family, I don't think she "runs" on batteries. wink-wink nudge-nudge say no more.

Do I think she's "qualified"? Hell if I know...

I'm sure she can spell potato. And even without adding an 'e'

What else would a VP need?

I do know that Cindy McCain will drive me up a friggin' tree if I have to listen to her go on about something... and on... and on... but she's not the candidate, so hopefully I can just tune her out. p

And you would rather want to hear Michelle ramble on and on?

When she is angry that woman reminds me of aunt Ester.

LaWanda_Page.gif

Well... lemme put it this way... you can count on the fact that I WILL vote. B)

Well, I guess the good news is that you don't live in Ohio. So go ahead and vote early where you are. I already know which way your state is going anyway. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~tangerine~

~tangerine~

Posted
Posted
Yeah I got the jab, I just chose to ignore it. I have learned that doing that works too sometimes :lol:

I'll bet she can even shoot well from a horse.. (still not looking better to you you old horse gal?)

Looking at the size of her family, I don't think she "runs" on batteries. wink-wink nudge-nudge say no more.

I'm sure she can spell potato. And even without adding an 'e'

What else would a VP need?

And you would rather want to hear Michelle ramble on and on?

When she is angry that woman reminds me of aunt Ester.

LaWanda_Page.gif

Well, I guess the good news is that you don't live in Ohio. So go ahead and vote early where you are. I already know which way your state is going anyway. :lol:

Del, YOU DO REALIZE YOU ALTERED EVERY QUOTE by putting my name in them. THEY WERE ALL SAID BY SOMEONE ELSE (appears they are from your conversations with Lake of Shadows).

Do you have no dignity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyPage1977

JimmyPage1977

Posted
Posted
To be qualified to be VP, one has to be qualified to be POTUS.

So the real question is: How do you figure that she's qualified to be POTUS?

The VP is not some political garnish.. or tasty, sexy side dish.

The VP is a presidential insurance policy.

So please tell me: what makes Sarah Palin qualified to be POTUS?

Remember,.. she herself cites the fact that Russia and Alaska are in geographical

proximity to each other as being indicative of her having foreign affairs experience.

She'd be next in line to be POTUS, and she offers THAT as her foreign affairs credentials?

..and you're actually buying that as a sufficient foreign affairs qualifications? :unsure:

And prior to four days ago she had no idea what "the Bush doctrine" is.

dude. come on.

fyi..

Bill Richardson. Now there's a governor with a boatload of foreign affairs experience!

Christine Gregoire. Now there's a governor with substantial executive/budgetary experience!

No doubt. I'm not suggesting that Palin is unqualified because she's been a governor. Being governor can be a great stepping stone to becoming POTUS. What I'm saying is that she's not ready to fulfill the single most important function of the VP: stepping in as POTUS should the president die or become incapacitated. Being governor of Alaska for as short a time as she has., does not in and of itself qualify her to be POTUS.

Her political career consists of her having gone from being PTA member to mayor of Podunk to half-term (so far) governor of the US state with the 47th smallest population of all the states. There are many US cities that have bigger populations, bigger annual budgets, and bigger public service administrations than Alaska has. She has executive experience, yes; but that gubernatorial executive experience is relatively small-time as far as gubernatorial executive experience goes.

Palin's gubernatorial executive experience alone does not

qualify her to be POTUS. So then, once again, the question is:

what is it that qualifies Sarah Palin to be POTUS??

Look,.. I don't doubt that she has potential, but she's clearly not ready to step in as POTUS on 'day two' should John McCain.. a 72yr-old old man with a history of cancer.. become incapacitated the day after being inaugurated.

Granted. But if she's POTUS, are you suggesting that the buck

will stop with her 'team of advisors' rather than with her? :whistling:

I've yet to hear anyone from the right put forth a substantive case for her being qualified to

be POTUS. I've put forth a substantive case for why she's NOT (yet) qualified to be POTUS.

If you think questioning her qualifications to be POTUS is nothing but

"mere rhetoric",.. well, with all due respect friend,.. you're being foolish.

..imho.

Thanks. I hear ya! We're fortunate to be living in this beautiful part of the country, huh?!

Fyi.. it's as beautiful below the water as it is above, bro.

[btw.. I was just needling you with the Christine Gregoire comment.

ADVISERS:

If you think that Barack Obama is an expert on all issues and will not seek the counsel of advisers before making a decision that will effect the lives of all citizens of the United States, then you, my friend, are foolish.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Our founding Fathers would view Sarah Palin's rise from the PTA to Mayor to Governor as exactly how they planned it to happen. She has a ton of executive experience over goverment bureaucracies. Obama ...... ZERO. How is he going to jump from no executive experience to the highest executive position in the land? Your argument works better for me than it does for you. :D

OUR BELOVED GOVERNOR:

If you think that Christine Gregoire's term as Governor Of Washington State has been successful, then your opinion has absolutely NO VALUE to me. How unfortunate that the extreme liberal voting of the city of Seattle was enough to narrowly get her elected. Wouldn't it be nice to have all of that revenue from the taxes on tribal casinos that she sold out for? She's as crooked as they come. I'm glad that you were just ribbing me about her, but wait.... you voted for her! SHAME! As long as there is a "D" by her name she gets your vote.

WHILE WE'RE AT IT:

Seattle Mayor Greg Nichols....I'm sure that he is a big favorite for you! Let's ban bonfires on Alki Beach and Golden Gardens to reduce our carbon footprint! :blink:

Can he be any more elitist?

How about we charge 20 cents per plastic grocery bag so people will start bringing cloth bags to the store with them. People don't have it tough enough yet, so elitist libs don't see a problem with taxing people in, yet, another creative way. (I do advocate using cloth, reusable grocery sacks, but not to the point of forcing people with financial penalty to do so)

He probably will ban scuba diving in Puget Sound because it could potentially harm the delicate ecosystem.

I'm glad I live outside of the city limits! :D

Don't tell anyone how beautiful it was in Seattle today...we don't want them moving here!! :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lake of Shadows

Lake of Shadows

Posted
Posted

I'm kinda curious... did you attribute pieces of my post to Tangerine DELiberately or were you just having a "Del moment"? :huh:

Yeah I got the jab, I just chose to ignore it. I have learned that doing that works too sometimes :lol:

I'll bet she can even shoot well from a horse.. (still not looking better to you you old horse gal?)

Looking at the size of her family, I don't think she "runs" on batteries. wink-wink nudge-nudge say no more.

I'm sure she can spell potato. And even without adding an 'e'

What else would a VP need?

A potatoe peeler.

And you would rather want to hear Michelle ramble on and on?

When she is angry that woman reminds me of aunt Ester.

LaWanda_Page.gif

Well, I guess the good news is that you don't live in Ohio. So go ahead and vote early where you are. I already know which way your state is going anyway. :lol:

FWIW, yeah, I think I'd rather listen to Michelle 'ramble on and on' than to Cindy drone on... at least I'd be able to stay awake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Del Zeppnile

Del Zeppnile

Posted
Posted
FYI..

----------

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002. This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine. It was updated in 2006 and is stated as follows:

“It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. ” [source: wikip]

----------

See and read the full text for yourself, Delbert:

* The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, signed Sept 17, 2002 by George W Bush *

There. Now you know what "the Bush doctrine" is. Not from some liberal blog,.. but

straight from Bush's National Security Strategy. No more playin dumb about it, bud. ;)

Charlie Gibson was right. And sarah Palin was.. clueless. :rolleyes:

:beer:

:hippy:

That is not a "Doctrine." It is a NSC directive for policy not unlike the same directives we have had since WW2 from every President. But it would not qualify as a 'doctrine' in my opinion, since it was not declared by the President to the world as being such. And as I already pointed out, it was not implemented in the case of North Korea, even though all the elements of the directive were already being met just based on North Korea's threatening actions. So I hardly see that as being "doctrine."

I'm sure you would argue that this is only semantics; however, every President makes policy directives that are for the purpose of making their respective administrations follow the foreign policy goals of that administration. Charlie Gibson's question to Sarah Palin was obviously vague and meant to trap her. However, the problem lies in the fact that Gibson's question comes right out of the far left's talking points, namely those of people like Noam Chomsky who has been harping on "preemtive war" thing for a long time now. And it really bothers me that Charlie Gibson seems to be drinking that Kool-Aid before coming up with these types of questions.

Examples of Presidential Doctrines are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine

Here is the home page for the excerpt you posted:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html

If that is not a liberal site I'm Donald Duck. :whistling:

Just for fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcvp3VUjdVY

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

LEDZEPPELIN.com

Site Navigation

  • LedZeppelin.com Home
  • News
  • Discography
  • Merchandise
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

    • Led Zeppelin Timeline

  • Concert Timeline / Database
  • Events
  • Photos
  • Video
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...