+- Riesentöter Forums (https://rtr-pca.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+--- Thread: Obama vs. Palin (/showthread.php?tid=1407)
- dmano - 09-08-2008
It was very funny listening to Obama on an interview the other day. I only got to here a small part of it. When asked a direct question on drilling in Anwar, he was a bumbling idiot. He fumbled for words as the interviewer was firing questions at him. He was asked about the drilling and his answer was very confusing. He is opposed to drilling because it will upset the Caribou, and the surrounding landscape? Thats a good one, the surrounding landscape of ice and rock and Caribou, all the while we the people are paying high prices for oil when we have a a lot of oil in Anwar to tap. So much for answering questions while under pressure he failed that one big time.
I wish I could find the interview and listen to it in it's entirety. Not sure if it was one of the ones from Erie or not.
- dmano - 09-08-2008
nplenzick wrote:
Quote:Wellardmac wrote:Quote:Review on the science positions of the candidates. Palin has not yet been vetted, but it's not going to be pretty.The first link above is excellent! Unbiased information. If science is important to you read it and pick your candidate!
http://sharp.sefora.org/innovation2008/mccain-obama/
http://sefora.org/2008/08/22/obama-picks-biden-for-vp-how-is-he-on-science/
I have read them all and now who do I pick. They both, as all politicians, can talk all they what.
But how much action can we really expect from all the information they talk about?
They can Talk the Talk, but which one can Walk the Walk?
- Wellardmac - 09-08-2008
dmano wrote:
Quote:I have read them all and now who do I pick. They both, as all politicians, can talk all they what.
But how much action can we really expect from all the information they talk about?
They can Talk the Talk, but which one can Walk the Walk?
Agreed. They all say whatever it takes to get elected, then do as they please afterwards. It's less of case of what they say they'll do, but more of a case of understanding what they believe and are motivated by - those things will determine their actions more than their thoughts.
- emayer - 09-09-2008
Wellardmac wrote:
Quote:dmano wrote:Very true. This is what is concerning/ risky about Obama. At least with the others we have seen them "walk the walk" and can review their decisions and leadership skills. With Obama presently we can only rely on talk, and even that can be at times hazy.....
Quote:I have read them all and now who do I pick. They both, as all politicians, can talk all they what.
But how much action can we really expect from all the information they talk about?
They can Talk the Talk, but which one can Walk the Walk?
Agreed. They all say whatever it takes to get elected, then do as they please afterwards. It's less of case of what they say they'll do, but more of a case of understanding what they believe and are motivated by - those things will determine their actions more than their thoughts.
- dmano - 09-09-2008
emayer wrote:
Quote:Going back to my original post, but said much nicer and much shorter
Agreed. They all say whatever it takes to get elected, then do as they please afterwards. It's less of case of what they say they'll do, but more of a case of understanding what they believe and are motivated by - those things will determine their actions more than their thoughts.
Very true. This is what is concerning/ risky about Obama. At least with the others we have seen them "walk the walk" and can review their decisions and leadership skills. With Obama presently we can only rely on talk, and even that can be at times hazy.....
- nplenzick - 09-17-2008
A few weeks ago Palin has said she welcomed the bipartisan commission in Alaska about "trooper gate", it seams like that has changed now.
From the AP this morning " Sarah Palin is effectively turning over questions about her record as Alaska's governor to John McCain's political campaign, part of ambitious Republican strategy to limit any embarrassing disclosures and carefully shape her image for voters in the rest of the country."
It goes on to say " Republican efforts include dispatching a former top U.S. terrorism prosecutor from New York, Ed O'Callaghan to assist Palin's personal lawyer working to derail or delay a pending ethics investigation in Alaska"
Hmmmm, I wonder what she's trying to hide?
- Porshagod - 09-17-2008
Anyone with half a brain understands that in todays political environment, you are voting for the party, NOT the person. It really doesn't matter who the candidate is, it is what their political party represents. After seeing what has happened to this country over the last 8 years, the choice should be clear.
- emayer - 09-17-2008
Good question. According to available e-mail transcripts, she really dosen't have anything to hide! In my view, she should move forward and deal with this head on for what it is, a politically motivated fishing expedition.
BTW, I would put that issue on about the same level as the article below. It's great once again to see how our candidates are permitted to frankly address the real issues affecting us all rather than dealing with mudslinging...
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
By AMIR TAHERI – NY Post
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July. "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview. Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion." "However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says. Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined. Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet. Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still. By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June. Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law. Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind. According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues. Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides. Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success. Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history." Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues." Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America. Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years. Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January. To sign up for Daily Newsletter Alerts, please visit http://www.nypost.com/php/newsletter/classify_newsletter_clicks.php <http://www.nypost.com/php/newsletter/classify_newsletter_clicks.php>