Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Palin Quits

124

Comments

  • #92
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,345 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    jank wrote: »
    Equal criticism? It would be equal critisim if they both did the same thing but they didn't.

    As far as I recall Obama got elected to the US Senate and was the reason why he didn't complete his term in the state senate. This is fact.

    It is indeed fact. I'm not disputing it at all. But it is also fact that he did not intend to complete his term in the State Senate.
    He ran for election to congress but got beaten. He kept his state senate seat as he was entitled to do. This is fact.

    Just goes to show how much he valued his State Senate seat, really, doesn't it? It was something he didn't seem to value in itself, it was simply a route to higher office, and a second-string position in his opinion. Obviously he was never really giving it his full attention.
    He did not just quit politics. He is still in politics. He did not take a time out to weigh up his options. This is also fact.

    Right, so whilst he was weighing his options, and incidently campaigning for other office, he was paying less attention to the duties incumbent upon the position he held. At least with Palin gone, the Governor of Alaska is no longer being distracted by any plans or machinations for higher office, she's going to be doing her Presidential Campaigning on her own time, not Alaska's.
    He did something pretty much all US politicians do. Clinton, Bush and many more all did this too. McCain would have had to give up his seat if he got elected and so too would Palin....... ironic eh!

    Exactly. So why should he be given a free ride for it?

    NTM


  • #93
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I'm saying that one can't go criticising Palin for failing to complete the job she was elected to do without applying such equal criticism to Obama.

    NTM

    Agreed. Only the partisan Kool-Aid drinkers can't see that.


  • #94
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,007 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Well the truth is we don't know what Palin quit for.

    If she quit to run for presidency then it is a legitimate attempt to go for promotion basically.

    If she quit because she couldn't hack politics anymore, its another story.


  • #95
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Obama went from Organzing Acorn rallies to Senator and was only Senator for a couple of years. And Hilary only moved to NY just to run for Senator.
    This does not agree with the facts. He held office as Illinois State Senator from 1997 to 2004 (6-7 years) before running for the US Senator from Illinois. In the last case, he was elected to US Senate in 2004 and held that office until becoming president in 2009 (four years as US Senator, not 2). A decade plus in elected office not "a couple years."
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I'm saying that one can't go criticising Palin for failing to complete the job she was elected to do without applying such equal criticism to Obama.
    There is a whale of a difference between resigning your post to be sworn in to higher office as Obama did on every occasion, when compared to Sarah Palin who resigned as governor of Alaska in mid-term to assume no elected office. Furthermore, Obama's supporters continued to back him for higher office, knowing full well of his plans which were made public well in advance, while Palin's supporters were completely surprised by her sudden resignation, which appeared amateurish, unplanned, and yielding to pressures typical of holding high office in the USA.


  • #96
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    This does not agree with the facts. He held office as Illinois State Senator from 1997 to 2004 (6-7 years) before running for the US Senator from Illinois. In the last case, he was elected to US Senate in 2004 and held that office until becoming president in 2009 (four years as US Senator, not 2). A decade plus in elected office not "a couple years."

    There is a whale of a difference between resigning your post to be sworn in to higher office as Obama did on every occasion, when compared to Sarah Palin who resigned as governor of Alaska in mid-term to assume no elected office. Furthermore, Obama's supporters continued to back him for higher office, knowing full well of his plans which were made public well in advance, while Palin's supporters were completely surprised by her sudden resignation, which appeared amateurish, unplanned, and yielding to pressures typical of holding high office in the USA.


    He was a Community Organizer and had ties to Acorn. To some research before posting again.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Ruskie4Rent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Ruskie4Rent


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Obama went from Organzing Acorn rallies to Senator and was only Senator for a couple of years.
    He went from community organising to serving 7 years as a state legislator and served 4 years in the US senate AFAIK.
    Do some research before posting again.
    Indeed.


  • #98
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Ruskie4Rent wrote: »
    He went from community organising to serving 7 years as a state legislator and served 4 years in the US senate AFAIK.


    Indeed.

    BL didn't want to believe he was a Community Organizer. So yes. s/he should have done some research.

    I know it upsets some of you that Obama was a shake down artist like Sharpton and Jackson but it is the truth whether you want to admit it or not.


  • #99
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,345 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    There is a whale of a difference between resigning your post to be sworn in to higher office as Obama did on every occasion, when compared to Sarah Palin who resigned as governor of Alaska in mid-term to assume no elected office.

    Yes. At least Palin isn't wasting State time.
    Furthermore, Obama's supporters continued to back him for higher office, knowing full well of his plans which were made public well in advance, while Palin's supporters were completely surprised by her sudden resignation, which appeared amateurish, unplanned, and yielding to pressures typical of holding high office in the USA.

    Not my fault if Obama's supporters approve of mediocritous performance. If they wanted him to run for Congress (or higher), why not just nominate him for the position straight off? Why waste what could have been productive years in the Illinois Legislature for someone who would take the time to learn the Illinois Legislature's workings and then set about working for that district in Illinois instead of swearing in, then trying to figure out the workings of a congressional campaign instead? Why not put someone in the Illinois Seat who valued the position for what it was, instead of someone who obviously didn't consider it a worthy place to put in a few years.

    NTM


  • #100
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,714 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Agreed. Only the partisan Kool-Aid drinkers can't see that.

    This is one of these posts (along with a lot more of what you come out with), where i start questioning if this guys just some paid republican hack who goes around internet forums muddying up the waters, pushing the fox news agenda..

    Like are you seriously comparing Ms. Palin, an ex beauty queen, with Obama, an extremely intelligent man, who has done quite a bit for his community/country?..Seriously?..Did you see the Katy Couric interview she did during the campaign?..Do you actually listen to what she says at all?..Are you one of the people that follow Luntz's rational, that the only thing thats important is whats being said at any given moment..Not in context or anything like...pay no attention to what all these words mean when they're put in an actual sentence..and completely disregard the sentence before and after..


  • #101
    Ruskie4Rent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Ruskie4Rent


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    BL didn't want to believe he was a Community Organizer. So yes. s/he should have done some research.
    WTF are you on? Where from her post did you get that form?

    You made a point that seemed to imply that obama went straight from the seemingly shady practice of community organizing :rolleyes: to the US senate and that he only spent a few years there.

    She never said he wasn't a community organizer, just that there is a 7 year stint in the illinois senate that you ignored.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is one of these posts (along with a lot more of what you come out with), where i start questioning if this guys just some paid republican hack who goes around internet forums muddying up the waters, pushing the fox news agenda..

    I wonder if most of you are paid liberal hacks pushing the MSNBC agenda
    Like are you seriously comparing Ms. Palin, an ex beauty queen, with Obama, an extremely intelligent man, who has done quite a bit for his community/country

    LOL. Obama being intelligent. Shook down businesses like Sharpton and Jackson do, He's repeatedly put his foot in his mouth when asked questions with no prior knowledge or teleprompter handy, Walked into one controversy after another with his Cabinet picks, His Stimulus package that added to the deficit and now wants another one and Helathcare, plus Cap and Trade that does nothing more double peoples utility bills, and put his put his foot in his mouth and pissed off the Police Unions by sticking up for his loud mouthed racist friend. So tell me again the great one is intelligent.

    Want some more Kool-Aid?


  • #103
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Yes. At least Palin isn't wasting State time.

    Unlike you Manic :D

    How's the craic out there in Afghanistan? Full of sand?


  • #104
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It is indeed fact. I'm not disputing it at all. But it is also fact that he did not intend to complete his term in the State Senate.

    I am sorry but I or you don't know what Obama's intentions were when he took up his very first office in 97. Yes he did not complete his full term but I presume his constituency backed him to the hilt when he went for office in 2004 and again in 2009, Just look at the polls!
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Just goes to show how much he valued his State Senate seat, really, doesn't it? It was something he didn't seem to value in itself, it was simply a route to higher office, and a second-string position in his opinion. Obviously he was never really giving it his full attention.

    His opinion? Where did he say that the state Senate is a second string or are you trying to imply because he went for higher office he must have the opinion that the state senate is worthless. There is a difference here.

    And if you are right, then wouldn't the same be said for Bush in 2000, Clinton in 1992, McCain in 2008 and low and behold Palin in 2008. Since they went for higher office than they must have thought that their current office is second rate!

    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Right, so whilst he was weighing his options, and incidently campaigning for other office, he was paying less attention to the duties incumbent upon the position he held. At least with Palin gone, the Governor of Alaska is no longer being distracted by any plans or machinations for higher office, she's going to be doing her Presidential Campaigning on her own time, not Alaska's.

    Well first off Palin is going to make alot of money doing what she wants to do. That is her right and I will defend that but to give her an out right pass because others like Obama plan to run for higher office while in office is hyperbole to say the least. If she wants to run in 2012 let her, it will be her right but her "quiting" because she cant take the heat will be the first black mark and maybe fatal mark against her.

    As for Obama, what you are saying that no politician should run for higher office while in office. Is that true?

    If that was the case then nobody would enter politics. I have not heard you or anyone else critise him for doing so until now as a exaggerated comparison to defend Palin.The 2 things are completely out of content. Apples and Oranges.

    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Exactly. So why should he be given a free ride for it?

    A free ride? It is not a free ride. I have NEVER heard anyone criticize Bush or Clinton to take 2 examples for leaving their office to take on the presidency. Hell their own state popularity went through the roof when they did. If you asked someone from any state if you would back a local senator, Governor, congressman for the presidency over them staying put and serving "local" issue they would say 90% of the time go for the white house! Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

    Of course loyalty is something to be expected from people and in an ideal world people would not seek out other opportunities until they have finished what they stated, but isn't the American way to try your bast to do your best and go for the best jobs because you are the best man/women for it?

    The only reason Obama is even mentioned here is to deflect the argument and attention away from Palin.

    At least I can look forward to you criticizing pretty much all 2012 GOP presidential nominees for ditching their constituencies and running for the top job. Apart from Palin of course.:pac:

    Hold on.... maybe thats the grand plan:eek: Get me Rahm Emanuel on the phone!

    :D


  • #105
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    I wonder if most of you are paid liberal hacks pushing the MSNBC agenda



    LOL. Obama being intelligent. Shook down businesses like Sharpton and Jackson do, He's repeatedly put his foot in his mouth when asked questions with no prior knowledge or teleprompter handy, Walked into one controversy after another with his Cabinet picks, His Stimulus package that added to the deficit and now wants another one and Helathcare, plus Cap and Trade that does nothing more double peoples utility bills, and put his put his foot in his mouth and pissed off the Police Unions by sticking up for his loud mouthed racist friend. So tell me again the great one is intelligent.

    Want some more Kool-Aid?

    Well at least he didnt ignore a memo that arrived on his desk that said "Osama Bin Laden planning to attack the United States"

    *Send to Trash Can*


  • #106
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,345 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    jank wrote: »
    I am sorry but I or you don't know what Obama's intentions were when he took up his very first office in 97. Yes he did not complete his full term but I presume his constituency backed him to the hilt when he went for office in 2004 and again in 2009, Just look at the polls!

    Didn't seem to back him to the hilt in 2000. I agree, we cannot say what his intentions were in 97, but we certainly know what they were by the middle of the term: He was interested in a different job.
    His opinion? Where did he say that the state Senate is a second string or are you trying to imply because he went for higher office he must have the opinion that the state senate is worthless. There is a difference here.

    Not worthless. Just not worthy of His Great Presence.
    And if you are right, then wouldn't the same be said for Bush in 2000, Clinton in 1992, McCain in 2008 and low and behold Palin in 2008. Since they went for higher office than they must have thought that their current office is second rate!

    Absolutely, nearly. Clinton had been out of the Governor's office in Arkansas for four years before running in 1992.
    If she wants to run in 2012 let her, it will be her right but her "quiting" because she cant take the heat will be the first black mark and maybe fatal mark against her.

    Perhaps. I'm not debating that. Though I do think it is the more honourable course to abdicate the position you claim on leaving first. (Besides, such a policy would dramatically reduce frivolous runs)
    As for Obama, what you are saying that no politician should run for higher office while in office. Is that true?

    If that was the case then nobody would enter politics. I have not heard you or anyone else critise him for doing so until now as a exaggerated comparison to defend Palin.The 2 things are completely out of content. Apples and Oranges.

    With respect, my opinion on people using Senate time campaigning for higher office instead of working for the position they hold has been mentioned several times before, and without regard to the party that they affiliate with.
    See, for example, this post of mine from 10 months ago
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57369500
    Me wrote:
    On the contrary, one of the big complaints has been that this year's campaign season has been so long that the candidates have been spending very little time doing the job they were elected to do. It's not a case of doing a press conference or press of hands an hour down the road in Arklow, before coming back for the Afternoon Session, American campaigning takes you on the road for days at a time.

    NTM


  • #107
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    jank wrote: »
    Well at least he didnt ignore a memo that arrived on his desk that said "Osama Bin Laden planning to attack the United States"

    *Send to Trash Can*

    No but he is ignorned the memo that said "The Country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Stop spending money."

    *Sent to Shredder with the Constitution*

    More Kool-Aid?


  • #108
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    Anyone any ideas what Palin is going to be doing for next three years. What is her strategy.


  • #109
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    No but he is ignorned the memo that said "The Country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Stop spending money."

    *Sent to Shredder with the Constitution*

    More Kool-Aid?

    Do you have a link for this "memo" or do you make up your own reality as you go along. Conspiracy theory forum this way -->>


  • #110
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Didn't seem to back him to the hilt in 2000. I agree, we cannot say what his intentions were in 97, but we certainly know what they were by the middle of the term: He was interested in a different job.

    As are all politicans at the end of the day.

    Anyway he did get re-elected to the state senate in 2002. The people had the chance to boot him out for the audacity to run for congress but they didn't. At the end of the day you CANNOT rule against democracy.

    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Not worthless. Just not worthy of His Great Presence.
    Ah see with comments like that you let your self down and show yourself not even attempting to be reasonable and balanced.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Absolutely, nearly. Clinton had been out of the Governor's office in Arkansas for four years before running in 1992.

    I am sorry but you are wrong. According to wikipedia he left office in december 1992 only days before inaguration.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Arkansas

    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Perhaps. I'm not debating that. Though I do think it is the more honourable course to abdicate the position you claim on leaving first. (Besides, such a policy would dramatically reduce frivolous runs)

    In theory yes that would be great but the risk of doing so, nobody would then run for anything. This really should be a discusion on the Amercian Politico system.

    Manic Moran wrote: »
    With respect, my opinion on people using Senate time campaigning for higher office instead of working for the position they hold has been mentioned several times before, and without regard to the party that they affiliate with.
    See, for example, this post of mine from 10 months ago
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57369500

    My applogies I take it back.

    Basicly the reason I took exception to your post is that you were directly comparing both Obama and Palin as the same thing which clearly they are not. I dont agree with people taking a year or more to run for higher office but as mentioned both parties do it all the time. There are many things wrong with the politics of Amercia and that is one of them and a topic I am willing to discuss in another thread if you so wish.

    This is about Palin and in the way she quit her job to either a) make money or b) make a run in 2012.
    Obama has nothing to do with this other than the time he took to run for higher office while in office (which as you say yourself 99% of the do anyway!!).

    It is a bad attempt to deflect attention away from Palin IMO.


  • #111
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,345 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    jank wrote: »
    At the end of the day you CANNOT rule against democracy.

    Oh, I agree with you. But as the saying goes, never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers. Part of the reason I keep things in perspective when I'm in a minority :)

    Ah see with comments like that you let your self down and show yourself not even attempting to be reasonable and balanced.

    My comment would stand for anyone who viewed a seat as a mere stepping stone. Such has been my opinion ever since Mary Robinson used the Presidency as a means of getting a crack at the UN. We all knew that was her plan when she was running for election the second time. It was not a slam specifically at Obama, I just think he's one of those guilty of it.
    I am sorry but you are wrong. According to wikipedia he left office in december 1992 only days before inaguration.

    My error.
    In theory yes that would be great but the risk of doing so, nobody would then run for anything. This really should be a discusion on the Amercian Politico system.

    Of course they would. They'd just have to pick and choose what they wanted to run for.
    This is about Palin and in the way she quit her job to either a) make money or b) make a run in 2012.
    Obama has nothing to do with this other than the time he took to run for higher office while in office (which as you say yourself 99% of the do anyway!!).

    It is a bad attempt to deflect attention away from Palin IMO.

    I routinely take discussions off on tangents I find interesting. Not as an attempt to divert attention (Because I find things are so polarised it doesn't work anyway) but because it's something I have an opinion on which is relatively 'personality-irrelevant'

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    BL didn't want to believe he was a Community Organizer. So yes. s/he should have done some research.
    No, I am fully aware that he was a community organizer before his decade in public office, in addition to being a civil rights attorney for a major law firm. I posted a resume for Obama on boards.ie during the 2008 campaign and know his background. I was addressing your false reference to Obama only having "a couple years" of elected office in the Senate before becoming president. Reread my post before you misquote someone.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Yes. At least Palin isn't wasting State time.
    I am not a fan of US Senator Boxer, but she once said something that I believe to be accurate regarding those who occupy the office of US Senator (or other high offices such as governor). She said that if you wanted to be reelected in 6 years to the senate, you had to begin campaigning and fund raising the day after you were sworn into office as senator, and continue to do so during your six years in office. To think otherwise was naive and uninformed.

    The USA is not a democracy in practice, but rather a form of representative government, and unfortunately the corporations, unions, and special interest lobbies that have vast monies to fund their candidates get the best government that money can buy (in terms of their interests, and not necessarily the interests of the common US voter).

    Regarding Sarah Palin, she was elected to serve as the Governor of Alaska for 4 years, and she suddenly resigned mid-term, and walked away from her elected responsibilities to do what? Avoid the heat? Write a book? Make money on the lecture circuit? Hunt wolves from an airplane? Campaign for some other office? Who knows for sure? Her supporters who elected her were not given advance notice, and were left in mid-stream. Her action appeared unplanned and irresponsible to those who elected her.


  • #113
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,345 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Regarding Sarah Palin, she was elected to serve as the Governor of Alaska for 4 years, and she suddenly resigned mid-term, and walked away from her elected responsibilities to do what? Avoid the heat? Write a book?

    I have no idea. I'm not applauding her decision to quit the governorship, I'm just saying that if she's doing it so that she can run for the Presidency, at least it's a less damaging for Alaska way of doing it than making the run when she's still in office.

    NTM


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,714 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What about McCain leaving his seat as a senator in 2000 and 2008 to run for president?..he didn't even get elected like..And as far as John Mc1s comment regarding my MSNBC agenda..I think you've been listening to Mr O reilly a bit too much..There's no left wing liberal agenda..Its just quite a few people have started to have a reasonable look at all these questions themselves, seen the lies on the republican side(not saying the democrats dont lie from time to time, but at least they try to have a reasoned debate), and said to themselves, well, here's a man who doesn't construct a speech out of just soundbites..He realises that the american people, regardless of what O Reilly etc think of them, can probably actually think about things..and probably deserve an honest answer to their question..

    I think its funny how the one news channel thats constantly ranting about this "liberal agenda" is FOX news..Says a lot..


  • #115
    leincar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 683 ✭✭✭leincar


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Anyone any ideas what Palin is going to be doing for next three years. What is her strategy.

    Learning to read and write and ultimately form a proper coherent opinion on numerous subjects on many different levels. Sorry I'm being facetious.

    Unfortunately she will spend the next three years with her cohorts on the Republican right wing filling her war chest with funds for a run at the presidency.


  • #116
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What about McCain leaving his seat as a senator in 2000 and 2008 to run for president?..he didn't even get elected like..And as far as John Mc1s comment regarding my MSNBC agenda..I think you've been listening to Mr O reilly a bit too much..There's no left wing liberal agenda..Its just quite a few people have started to have a reasonable look at all these questions themselves, seen the lies on the republican side(not saying the democrats dont lie from time to time, but at least they try to have a reasoned debate), and said to themselves, well, here's a man who doesn't construct a speech out of just soundbites..He realises that the american people, regardless of what O Reilly etc think of them, can probably actually think about things..and probably deserve an honest answer to their question..

    I think its funny how the one news channel thats constantly ranting about this "liberal agenda" is FOX news..Says a lot..

    LOL. That Kool-Aid is strong. LOL @ no liberal agenda. How did you type that with a straight face.

    If you watched O'Reilly as much as you [and most liberal Kool-Aid drinkers on here] mouth off about him you would know he has gone out of his way to be fair to Obama. He has evrn cut-off people that want wanted to go on a rant against Obama. Can you say that the Obama suck up networks have even tried to be fair to any Rep or Conservative? No you can't.

    LOL @ liberals having reasoned debates. Is having temper tamtrums and calling people racists and bigots really your idea [and the liberals] idea of having a debate? Wow. What is in that Kool-Aid?

    And btw. Obama is as much of a dumb **** on the mic without a teleprompter or doesn't know the questions ahead of time.

    More Kool-Aid sir?


  • #117
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Okay.

    From now on, every time you use the word "Kool Aid", I'm going to melt down a Congressional Medal of Honour.


  • #118
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Is having temper tamtrums and calling people racists and bigots really your idea [and the liberals] idea of having a debate? Wow

    I take it you were watching Beck lately!! All this in the space of a week!





    But I woudn't call beck a Liberal :pac: :pac:;)
    I think Foxnews has bought a 10 year supply of Kool-Aid just for Beck alone!:D

    Just a quick scan of fox any day and you find them going crazy left right and centre. If it is possible that they have become a bigger joke then they have...
    It is going to be a looooong 4 years (or 8) for them.

    It is like "tune in and see what crazy $hit they come out with next". I sometimes watch it just for this reason and this is the reason they have big ratings. Its entertainment but definately not news.

    I was actually going to make a new thread about this and how up $hit creak the GOP are and I will sometime in the future.

    The GOP should listen to people like this guy!



  • #119
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Larry King Interview Part 2



  • #120
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVelDpz5ZT0


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWczkoU6G18


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9wydk0fWns


    Another 3 parts not sure what the order is but watch away.

    It is nice to see the GOP have a straight talking guy who doesnt hide behind all the bull$hit. If he ran in 2012 then all bets are off!


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Oh, I agree with you. But as the saying goes, never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers. Part of the reason I keep things in perspective when I'm in a minority :)

    Well in my opinion democracy is over rated especially in the form it is in the states, but thats a discussion for another day.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    My comment would stand for anyone who viewed a seat as a mere stepping stone. Such has been my opinion ever since Mary Robinson used the Presidency as a means of getting a crack at the UN. We all knew that was her plan when she was running for election the second time. It was not a slam specifically at Obama, I just think he's one of those guilty of it.

    He is ambitious no doubt but it was a remark made out of context.

    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Of course they would. They'd just have to pick and choose what they wanted to run for.

    Yes but if they failed then they would be out of a job. Very high risk! A risk not many would like to take. It is like having to quit a job before even going for an interview. A proverbial can of worms.

    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I routinely take discussions off on tangents I find interesting. Not as an attempt to divert attention (Because I find things are so polarised it doesn't work anyway) but because it's something I have an opinion on which is relatively 'personality-irrelevant'

    Fair enough but you can see how the issue of "deflecting attention" would then come up.


Advertisement