Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Eisboch wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much
interest. She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a
simple person with a common sense perspective on the world.


She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high
office in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and
didn't seem to want to learn. A simple person has no business in the
White House or a heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to
be POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. :)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.


Cheney was Secretary of Defense for Reagan, I think I recall. Or maybe
it was under Bush I.
Regardless, I seem to recall that he was held in high regard when he
held that position, even by those who didn't necessarily subscribe to
the Republican party's policies.

Eisboch

Eis,
It was George the first, and you are correct about politics being
corrupt and corrupting those involved. The problem is Harry's "take no
prisoners" approach to political spin used to be the exception. Today,
we have too many people who use the exact same approach to politics and
"serving" our country. They would rather see our country go down the
crapper, than to have the opposition do something that was successful.

I am hoping the Republicans and Independents get behind our new
president, and try to work together to solve our problems.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:41:18 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:903925ec-d12e-40ac-aef3-

Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free world was
given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines...

========================================

If this election cycle taught me anything it was the absolute BS and
intellectual dishonesty that exists in the world of politics. And it comes
from both sides.

Spin something enough and it becomes a fact. I've never in my life seen a
bunch of supposedly educated people display the ability to straight out lie,
while keeping a straight face, about what they are on record as saying a
year earlier. Or twist a story around, repeating it over and over, until
it becomes "factual".

George Bush "lied" us into the war. Right. BULL****!

Then you watch the pundits. It's as if a position paper is emailed to
everyone early in the morning to be memorized. Throughout the rest of the
day, week or whatever, depending on how much attention a particular issue is
getting, they all repeat, virtually word for word, the same talking points.
We even witnessed it here in this NG on a regular basis.

I've resigned myself to the realization that all politicians, with very few
exceptions, are BS artists.
I used to respect Lieberman because he took a stand that was unpopular with
his party. But, now I see he is back to sucking up in order to save his ass
and position of power. It's sickening. And it's on both sides.

That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple person
with a common sense perspective on the world. You can agree with her or
disagree, but at least you know what she thinks and it isn't going to change
with the wind. The spin misters ate her alive.

But, to me, what took the cake and I'll never forget was our next Secretary
of State's whopper of a story, repeated several times, claiming to have
flown into Bosnia "under fire" from ground troops. She didn't "miss-speak"
anything. She friggin' made the story up, repeated it over the course of
three days and then, when finally trapped, arrogantly just shrugged it off
as if being a phony, lying SOB wasn't an issue that she needed to concern
herself with explaining. Good grief! What kind of "leaders" are we
willing to accept in this country?

Pretty much agree with all of this.
BTW, Jesse Ventura is another honest "politician."
I think, anyway.
Watch all the flip-flopping you're going to see - already happening -
when Burris shows up at the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.
What a F^%&&&& circus.

--Vic

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:54:10 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:



Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free world was
given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines...

That trap exists on both sides of the argument.....


The text of the Downing Street Memo reads: “It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was
not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his capability for weapons of mass destruction was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the
use of force.”

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs

Key word, usually overlooked by the left is 'seemed'. Hell, I could say it
'seemed' like Saddam had a warehouse full of nuclear weapons. Would my
statement be any less accurate?

I'll repeat: "Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free
world was given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines..."
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

That trap exists on both sides of the argument.....


The text of the Downing Street Memo reads: "It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was
not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his capability for weapons of mass destruction was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the
use of force."

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs



That's accurate. And for a time Saddam (under pressure) *did* agree to
allow the inspectors back in.
Then, he refused to allow inspections of certain facilities, and eventually
kicked them out again.

He was buying time.

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. It has nothing
to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Eisboch

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Jan 1, 5:31*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

...



That trap exists on both sides of the argument.....

The text of the Downing Street Memo reads: "It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was
not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his capability for weapons of mass destruction was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the
use of force."

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs

That's accurate. *And for a time Saddam *(under pressure) **did* agree to
allow the inspectors back in.
Then, he refused to allow inspections of certain facilities, and eventually
kicked them out again.

He was buying time.

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. *It has nothing
to do with 9/11. *It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. * *For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Eisboch

It doesn't fit into the fantasy and lies perpetrated on the public by
the left and the MSM. The biggest issue I have is seemingly decent
people who are willing to go along with the daily talking points,
knowing full well it is bull****.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:31:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .

That trap exists on both sides of the argument.....


The text of the Downing Street Memo reads: "It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was
not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his capability for weapons of mass destruction was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the
use of force."

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs



That's accurate. And for a time Saddam (under pressure) *did* agree to
allow the inspectors back in.
Then, he refused to allow inspections of certain facilities, and eventually
kicked them out again.

He was buying time.

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. It has nothing
to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Eisboch

Liberals like to 'tie' it to 9/11 so they can 'shoot down' that idea and
pretend, therefore, that no rationale for attacking Saddam existed. Cute,
but transparent.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:18:14 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:31:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. It has nothing
to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Our middle east policy is all about Israel. We will invade Iran to
keep Israel from doing it too.
None of them are really a threat to the US

Now, no. With a newly developed nuclear weapon, yes.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Jan 1, 8:12*pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:46:21 -0800 (PST),
penned the following well considered
thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

It doesn't fit into the fantasy and lies perpetrated on the public by
the left and the MSM. The biggest issue I have is seemingly decent
people who are willing to go along with the daily talking points,
knowing full well it is bull****.

While we are talking fantasy and lies...... let's examine where these
WMDs came from.....


[Snipped most of this post, not dismissing any of it though]

I don't think anybody denies any of those facts and that the US used
to be friendly with Saddam.. So where are the fantasy and lies you
were going to address? I think we are on different subjects here now..

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:45:28 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:29:17 -0500, John H
wrote:


Our middle east policy is all about Israel. We will invade Iran to
keep Israel from doing it too.
None of them are really a threat to the US

Now, no. With a newly developed nuclear weapon, yes.

Iran won't shoot a nuke at us for the same reason the soviets never
shot a nuke at us.
If you are talking about a loose nuke getting to terrorists, Pakistan
is a lot more likely source ... or one the soviets "lost" and don't
want to admit.
Our adventures in Afghanistan are more likely to destabilize Pakistan
than they are to actually do anything to stop terrorism.
We should get our troops out of the whole area and bomb them with
food, books and the knowledge to create a functioning society.

If certainty exists that any fears about Iran and nuclear weapons are
groundless, then obviously I am wrong.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

Nobody believes that Saddam was a nice guy. Everybody is aware of his
shenanigans with the UN inspectors. However, Saddam had nothing to do
with 911. UN weapons inspectors, during the period from 10/02 until
03/03, had done enough inspections to concluded that Saddam's WMD
projects had been dead since about 1991. (Why does everybody ignore
that???) The Bush administration knew it, fabricated "intelligence,"
and attacked Iraq because that is what they were going to do.....
period. They just wanted an "excuse."



A person responsible for a vast amount of confusion and conflicting
influence was Hans Blix, the UN appointed, Swedish chief weapons inspector.
If you recall, he was doing the most complaining about restrictions being
imposed upon his teams by Saddam in the period leading up to the decision to
invade Iraq. He repeatedly suggested WMDs may exist but he was unable to
locate them or get evidence of their existence due to Saddam's interference.
Later, he completely changed his tune and became critical of the war
decision, claiming there were no WMDs. Strange character in the overall
scheme of things.
Another one who was "for" the WMD story before he was against it, and he
only became against it *after* the decision to go to war and witnessing the
resultant complications, like so many others.

Eisboch