Todd and Sarah Palin to divorce

[tomahawk6]

On the otherhand we have Barak Obama who has an Ivy League education and zero executive experience running the free world. Do you sleep better at night ? I sure dont.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I do sleep better... Obama is smarter than I am, and that's a good thing. GWB, Palin, and persons in the Republican/Conservative right like Bill O'Reilly are people that I listen to, and make arguments much like 16 year old girls... "I'm right, so there". At least Obama is willing to listen to the opinion of others. In fairness, GWB illegally invaded a country for no particular reason... I dont see Obama doing the same. Palin said that god wanted them to do it... enough said.

 

[vonGarvin]

Maybe I'm old school, but I think there's something to knowing that the person running the country is smarter than I am that has a certain appeal... it's like watching the CFL, it's good football, until you realize that the linemen make less than you do.  Sarah Palin is a charming person, but frankly, she is far too uneducated to run the free world.

You should have stopped right there.  Whether a lineman in the CFL makes more than you or not is irrelevant.  In fact, some would argue that part of the charm of the CFL is that they aren't spoiled rich kids like some other pro leagues.

I do sleep better... Obama is smarter than I am, and that's a good thing. GWB, Palin, and persons in the Republican/Conservative right like Bill O'Reilly are people that I listen to, and make arguments much like 16 year old girls... "I'm right, so there". At least Obama is willing to listen to the opinion of others. In fairness, GWB illegally invaded a country for no particular reason... I dont see Obama doing the same. Palin said that god wanted them to do it... enough said.

GW listened to others.  That is part (a major part) of what made him so successful.  He was a "hands off" type of person, be it as president, governor or as CEO.  As for "illegal" invasion, can you please provide "which" laws GW broke by invading? 

 

[observor 69]

I could waste a lot of time searching out references to support an anti Bush anti Palin argument but the best thing IMHO I can happily say is that those in the know politically agree that the Republican party is too far to the right for the majority of voters to win the next Presidential elections.

And my reference for that is
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-presidential-election-2012    ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

;D
Sarah Palin looks far better in a dress......IMO

 

[Fishbone Jones]

At least Obama is willing to listen to the opinion of others.

He said WHAT??

Sorry. I'm not buying what you're smoking.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A large part of Democratic Party success relies on two things - getting out all its supporters to vote (which is why they mobilize huge groups of volunteers to help people register and get them to the polls), and trying to find a way to get one of the constituent groups of the GOP to stay home.  If they can, for example, persuade the crazed religious right to stay home en masse, it helps them immensely.

The fact is that there's so much ludicrous mudslinging on both sides that it almost would make for good TV - well, I guess it does - but it's just a sideshow.  The Right blames Obama for everything they can (which is pretty ludicrous, the recession started before he took office and the US' budget mess is a product of the last eight years of mismanagement, including the channelling of trillions of dollars into a war that was based on lies and deception.  Rove, Bush, and Cheney engineered the selling of a personal vendetta to the American public, greatly enriching themselves in the process.

Even now, as Obama tries to move forward on his own goals - which it seems he has a mandate from the American public to do - the debate is being skewed and delayed by absolutely atrocious propaganda efforts led by insurance industry lobbies and "astroturf" groups. Then there is the utterly ridiculous birther movement.  Arguing about their validity makes about as much sense as arguing about the colour of unicorns, a friend told me yesterday.

The meltdown ca be traced to the Clinton days when rules where changed regarding lending regulations, also take a look at who was on th boards of Freddie and May, quite a few high ranking Dem names involved. Both McCain and Bush warned about the issues several years in advance of the meltdown. The Rep. still take some of the blame, but certainly not all of it.

One Obama's problems will be living up to the mythology being built around him, combined with a press who's love affair is begining to wilt.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:nod:

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Maybe I'm old school, but I think there's something to knowing that the person running the country is smarter than I am that has a certain appeal... it's like watching the CFL, it's good football, until you realize that the linemen make less than you do.  Sarah Palin is a charming person, but frankly, she is far too uneducated to run the free world.

Palin has a degree in journalism from the University of Idaho.  Obama has a law degree from Harvard.  Whether one is better educated to lead the free world is a matter of opinion and not fact.  Some people, myself included, see no advantage to a leader having a law degree nor an advantage to a leader having a Harvard degree nor an advantage in having any degree.  Part of the problem is that, in general, people you don't agree with appear stupider.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I suppose, but I vote conservative. At the end of the day, US politics is more polar than even ours is. I would say though that the right wing types seem to be far more "boisterous" about their beliefs. Leftists tend to be more prone to the intellectual superiority. The Republicans have many smart, well articulated folks. Sarah Palin is not one of them, nor was George W. Bush. If you  need any proof, just watch her interviews during the election, or the debate. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Take away Obama's teleprompter and he has trouble stringing three sentences together. I would prefer someone who talks on the level with other people rather than someone who likes using big words and catch phrases while talking down to them.

It's all moot anyway, POTUS may seem to be a powerful figure and rule the strongest nation on earth, but he's really just a figurehead. There are too many checks and balances, and too many levels of 'advisors' for him\her to go off willy nilly and do whatever they want.

 

[GAP]

Take away Obama's teleprompter and he has trouble stringing three sentences together. I would prefer someone who talks on the level with other people rather than someone who likes using big words and catch phrases while talking down to them.

It's all moot anyway, POTUS may seem to be a powerful figure and rule the strongest nation on earth, but he's really just a figurehead. There are too many checks and balances, and too many levels of 'advisors' for him\her to go off willy nilly and do whatever they want.

Unless the words on the teleprompter and his "team" can convince enough people that want change that "this" change will do the trick!!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Regardless of which party people belong to, reaching level to be either a President or Prime Minister generally excludes “stupid people” I don’t think Obama, Palin, Clinton or Bush are stupid people, they may not interview well or be as prepared as they would like. Just thinking what the schedule would be like for anyone that becomes the POTUS makes my head hurt.

Stick Palin, Bush, Obama and Biden out on the Tundra, I know which team I would take. Palin was thrown into the fray with little prep, most people enter it with a couple of year of preparation. Also remember that everything you see gets filtered, and those filtering have a bias. I fully expect to see Palin back again. Despite some stumbles she has the gift of not being part of the beltway and not tainted with much of the Rep. Infighting. With some polish she will reviti

I think history will be kind to Bush, He upset a very rotten applecart in the Middle East and the apples are still rolling, the results of his actions will play out for many years. I also think that unless something significant happens in the next few years, Obama’s only footnote in history will be as “First Black POTUS” As for the economic crisis, just how many people can name the US President in 1929 without Google’s help?

 

[Redeye]

The origin of the housing market meltdown isn't precisely traceable as fault lies with both parties, the private sector, unscrupulous lenders, etc etc ad nauseum.  Trying to blame it on any one party, person, president, whoever is impossible, and above all, irrelevant.  That's only one small part of the American economic problem.  In eight years the USA went from running budget surpluses to running massive deficits (which oddly enough in history is sort of the norm for Republican governments).  I accept that the disposal of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the military commitment of NATO to that region was necessary after 9/11 (if I didn't believe in that mission, as a reservist I would not have volunteered to serve there next year).  The invasion of Iraq, however, was wrong.  I'm not going to argue about legality (or the unenforceablility of international law or whatever), but it was simply wrong.  Perhaps if Bush 41 had finished the job in 1991 as MR supports, it would have turned out differently then (before Hussein had stoked religious fervour in what had for years been a secular nation), but in 2003 it was wrong.  Bush et al used lies (obvious lies to anyone who had any understanding of the region, as well) to sell the war to the public.  I think some part of them honestly believed that it was going to be a lot easier, but a country with two long-disenfranchised sects/ethnic groups (the Kurds and the Shia) forming the majority of the population was obviously going to cause problems once the Baathist state was disposed of.

Iraq was boondoggle on a Mongolian Clusterf**k scale.  It has cost American taxpayers thousands of soldiers' lives and billions if not trillions of dollars, to say nothing of what it has done to the people of Iraq who have died in the tens of thousands at the conservative end of the scale.  The tide of Iraqi refugees has caused problems for neighbouring states like Jordan, and provided a ripe opportunity for Iran to rattle its sabre and stoke violence in its neighbour.

There's no easy way out of it for America, and the fiscal damage is preventing meaningful debate on issues like healthcare reform.  They worry about further deficits but the lion's share of them are funding the debacle in Iraq still, and now even more scandal is emerging over it, with things like Erik Prince's murder allegations and so on coming to light.

I don't think Obama is some messianic figure or that he's somehow going to be able to save America in a few months (the standard by which his opponents seem to want to judge him), but I do think he was the right man for the job vice John McCain who didn't seem to offer anything to counter what has gone horribly wrong with America in the last eight years.  I similarly can't have seen another Republican government having done much else to handle the economic meltdown.  They would have engaged in the same sort of economic stimulus efforts they claim so passionately to oppose now because they probably don't have any better ideas... no one seems to.

The meltdown ca be traced to the Clinton days when rules where changed regarding lending regulations, also take a look at who was on th boards of Freddie and May, quite a few high ranking Dem names involved. Both McCain and Bush warned about the issues several years in advance of the meltdown. The Rep. still take some of the blame, but certainly not all of it.

One Obama's problems will be living up to the mythology being built around him, combined with a press who's love affair is begining to wilt.

 

[mariomike]

I think history will be kind to Bush, He upset a very rotten applecart in the Middle East and the apples are still rolling, the results of his actions will play out for many years. I also think that unless something significant happens in the next few years, Obama’s only footnote in history will be as “First Black POTUS” As for the economic crisis, just how many people can name the US President in 1929 without Google’s help?

Archie Bunker sang, "Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again."
From Wikipedia:
"After the defeat, Hoover's attempts to reach out to Roosevelt to help calm investors and begin to resolve the economic problems facing the country were rebuffed; since Roosevelt was not inaugurated until March 1933, this "guaranteed that Roosevelt took the oath of office amid such an atmosphere of crisis that Hoover had become the most hated man in America."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

People forget that the situation prior to the Invasion was not sustainable. The US and UK were spending billions to enforce the no fly zones, Saddam only complied with the UN at the last moment in an attempt to forestall the invasion, he was actively trying to rebuild his WMD program and the missiles to deliver it. The US had very poor humit based intelligence on his program and it is likely that Saddam kept everyone in the dark to maintain a potential of a creditable effectiveness as deterrent to Iran. The sanctions were failing, Saddam was offering China, Russia and France access to his oil reserves as part payment on his astronomical debts that he owed. Had the US not invaded, we would currently see a Iraq under Saddam being rearmed likely with mainly Chinese equipment, posing a major threat to everyone. Within a decade you would have likely have a nuke armed Iraq and Iran jostling with each other and very likely to use their weapons, both sides have used WMD’s already.

Thank you but I much rather live with “Bush’s mistake” than the alternative, however I do agree that Bush senior should have finished the job in 91. Iraq was in much better shape to rebound at that point.   

 

[Redeye]

The Iraqi WMD program had halted years prior to the invasion.  That's why the UN couldn't find any evidence of it, and the Americans could not either.

I have a hard time believing the idea that Saddam Hussein had any intention of doing anything but keeping himself looking strong domestically.  He knew Iran would not be in any mood to fight him, nor anyone else, but if it had been done right in the first place it'd be a non-issue anyhow.

People forget that the situation prior to the Invasion was not sustainable. The US and UK were spending billions to enforce the no fly zones, Saddam only complied with the UN at the last moment in an attempt to forestall the invasion, he was actively trying to rebuild his WMD program and the missiles to deliver it. The US had very poor humit based intelligence on his program and it is likely that Saddam kept everyone in the dark to maintain a potential of a creditable effectiveness as deterrent to Iran. The sanctions were failing, Saddam was offering China, Russia and France access to his oil reserves as part payment on his astronomical debts that he owed. Had the US not invaded, we would currently see a Iraq under Saddam being rearmed likely with mainly Chinese equipment, posing a major threat to everyone. Within a decade you would have likely have a nuke armed Iraq and Iran jostling with each other and very likely to use their weapons, both sides have used WMD’s already.

Thank you but I much rather live with “Bush’s mistake” than the alternative, however I do agree that Bush senior should have finished the job in 91. Iraq was in much better shape to rebound at that point. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Had the US not invaded, we would currently see a Iraq under Saddam being rearmed likely with mainly Chinese equipment, posing a major threat to everyone. Within a decade you would have likely have a nuke armed Iraq and Iran jostling with each other and very likely to use their weapons, both sides have used WMD’s already.
 

I'm interested to see what your sources are for this claim... Iraq had no nuclear program, it's military was dillapadated, there was absolutely no new equipment, and the Air Force was buried in sand dunes.  They had no military capability whatsoever to do anything than control their own people.  And where does china fit into this? china can't arm the Chinese military at this time.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I'm interested to see what your sources are for this claim... Iraq had no nuclear program, it's military was dillapadated, there was absolutely no new equipment, and the Air Force was buried in sand dunes.  They had no military capability whatsoever to do anything than control their own people.  And where does china fit into this? china can't arm the Chinese military at this time.

No nukes - Israel took care of that, but there are reports of buying strategic parts in Germany that used centrifuges to upgrade uranium instead of a reactor..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart3.html

 

[Redeye]

They had sought centrifuge parts in the very early 1990s and when caught they gave up on that too.  So again, the WMD issue is a total non-starter, and as Bird Gunner pointed out their military was obliterated to the point of uselessness for the most part after 1991 as well.

No nukes - Israel took care of that, but there are reports of buying strategic parts in Germany that used centrifuges to upgrade uranium instead of a reactor..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart3.html