View Full Version : Sarah Palin plans to run for POTUS.........
greenberetTFS
05-27-2011, 06:58
Heard on the WSJ this morning Sarah plans to make her announcement for the Presidency after a tour in the New England area and at the final stop in New Hampshire.... They claim that she will have the TEA parties complete endorsement and will give the existing GOP a real run for the money..... He felt she has a good chance to win and get the nomination....;)
Big Teddy :munchin
He felt she has a good chance to win and get the nomination...
The answer to the current POTUS's prayers.
Richard :munchin
My wife and I were actually talking about this yesterday. If she can pull off the nomination, I would vote for her. I think she gets a bum rap and blown off just because she is not as polished as others. On the other hand, she is a flak magnet for the libs. She stands for everything they hate. Given a chance, she would be worlds better than what we have.
The answer to the current POTUS's prayers.
Agreed. I'm going to keep my fingers crossed though in hopes that she doesn't end up helping BHO get re-elected.
Dohhunter
05-27-2011, 07:43
If we can flip and get a Conservative majority, SP can hopefully pull one off as well.
There are worse evils....but it makes me laugh to think of how worked up the Libs get over her entire existence.
"SHE SHOT A MOOSE ON TV??!??!??! THE HUMANITY!!"
It was a caribou, dumbfuck.
She will use all the free publicity of running by spending donors money. Drop out or not get nominated. Then write a book about the whole experience and make a few more million. I wish she would just go away. She can't handle simple interview questions unless they are scripted. But people think she should be President.
mark46th
05-27-2011, 08:48
I like Sarah. While not as sophisticated as the other candidates, she is fairly intelligent. That being said, without going into detail, she is unelectable. William F Buckley said we should put forward the most electable conservative candidate. She is a great fundraiser. That is where she can help the most, that is what she should be doing....
dadof18x'er
05-27-2011, 09:01
she is unelectable
isn't that what they said about Reagan?
isn't that what they said about Reagan?Is this point really a sustainable argument in favor of Governor Paiin's candidacy?
(FWIW, the "they" included Gerald R. Ford. <<LINK (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924192-1,00.html)>>.)
dadof18x'er
05-27-2011, 10:14
Is this point really a sustainable argument in favor of Governor Paiin's candidacy?
(FWIW, the "they" included Gerald R. Ford. <<LINK (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924192-1,00.html)>>.)
I guess I really wasn't going for "sustain". Just a gut feeling.
The answer to the current POTUS's prayers.
Richard :munchin
I wouldn't be so quick to make that judgment. She damn near beat his ass last time, in spite of McCain.
Lotta real estate filled with frustrated Sarah-lovers in between now and 11/12.
President or not, I'd take 4 years just looking at her.
It would make Camp David more interesting.
The Reaper
05-27-2011, 12:45
Here is the simple question I want hammered home and focused like a laser by the eventual Republican nominee.
Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Maybe they could follow that up with these.
Are you happy with the hope and change of the past four years?
Do you want more of the same?
I have a plan to deal with the challenges that face us. Here it is. What are the details of your plan, Mr. President?
As the POTUS, are you ultimately personally responsible for the success or failure of this administation?
TR
Here is a question I will ask myself:
"Do you think any Conservative candidate posed so far will do a whole HELLUVA lot better job at every facet of running this Country than that done since '08?"
But, of course.
With the possible exception of a couple that have declined to run.
Fortunately for the present POTUS, A SP run would be a God Send. I just wish she had not said with such certitude that she could "see could Russia from her front porch" and other such "Freudian slips"; Or was it NYC she could see from her front porch. lol
No, she is not polished, but not being polished enough is not why she IS NOT going to be POTUS. Perhaps it was the "wolf kill" from the chopper that got her in trouble..lmaool :eek:
Why don't you run?
Fortunately for the present POTUS, A SP run would be a God Send. I just wish she had not said with such certitude that she could "see could Russia from her front porch" and other such "Freudian slips"; Or was it NYC she could see from her front porch. lol
No, she is not polished, but not being polished enough is not why she IS NOT going to be POTUS. Perhaps it was the "wolf kill" from the chopper that got her in trouble..lmaool :eek:
I would vote for her just because SHE COULD kill a wolf from a chopper.:D
greenberetTFS
05-27-2011, 13:58
I would vote for her just because SHE COULD kill a wolf from a chopper.:D
Yep,that's as good a reason as any other I believe!..............:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Paragrouper
05-27-2011, 14:10
I just wish she had not said with such certitude that she could "see could Russia from her front porch" and other such "Freudian slips"
The proper quote (Link) (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=3);
"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
Fortunately for the present POTUS, A SP run would be a God Send. I just wish she had not said with such certitude that she could "see could Russia from her front porch" and other such "Freudian slips"; Or was it NYC she could see from her front porch. lol
No, she is not polished, but not being polished enough is not why she IS NOT going to be POTUS. Perhaps it was the "wolf kill" from the chopper that got her in trouble..lmaool :eek:
Actually she never said that. Tina Fey said that on SNL.
Tina Fey.IMO, that harridan has an ugly soul. She represents the worst aspects of contemporary American mass popular culture. Even the most hateful, least funny insult comics have what Fey lacks--the intellectual and artistic courage to look themselves in the mirror and to put themselves under the microscope.
mark46th
05-27-2011, 17:20
Sarah Palin would be a viable candidate if she had finished her term as governor, or left it to run for the Senate seat, taken the time to read some books and generally polished her image. But instead, she exposed her life to public ridicule in a cheesy television show that looked like "My Big Redneck Wedding" without Tom Arnold...
Sarah Palin would be a viable candidate if she had finished her term as governor, or left it to run for the Senate seat, taken the time to read some books and generally polished her image. But instead, she exposed her life to public ridicule in a cheesy television show that looked like "My Big Redneck Wedding" without Tom Arnold...Do you think she could rehabilitate herself?
Sarah Palin would be a viable candidate if she had finished her term as governor, or left it to run for the Senate seat, taken the time to read some books and generally polished her image. But instead, she exposed her life to public ridicule in a cheesy television show that looked like "My Big Redneck Wedding" without Tom Arnold...
I haven't seen it, but my wife reports that it's even worse than that.
BUT...
Look who's running against her. If she comes out winning the nomination, will you vote for her? Or for the incumbent?
Utah Bob
05-27-2011, 17:31
The answer to the current POTUS's prayers.
Richard :munchin
Boy that's for sure. He'd probably send her a check.
Boy that's for sure. He'd probably send her a check.
Then why all the vicious attacks? The Dems and MSM coddle the Reps they want to run against and attack the ones that they fear. They loved McCain and gave him lots of favorable coverage...well, until he picked Palin.
Pat
Boy that's for sure. He'd probably send her a check.
Would you be happy enough to send her a check if she was within 7 points of beating your ass when every college student, minority, metrosexual and politically-challenged female in the Country was having an Obamagasm over the hopey-changey bullshit?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/election_2008/presidential_final_results.html
Have you seen his approval polls lately?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
It indexed from a positive 28 to a negative 12. That's a 40-point drop.
It's too early to count anybody out, right now.
Like I say-I don't give a rat's ass who wins, as long as it's not a Democrat.
You can't go by what the major news networks say-they're Obamabots...
Paragrouper
05-27-2011, 18:00
[QUOTE=PSM;396142]Then why all the vicious attacks? The Dems and MSM coddle the Reps they want to run against and attack the ones that they fear./QUOTE]
True.
Sarah Palin is not my first choice, but if she can pull the nomination I'll certainly back her.
Politics like most popularity contest is perception and reputation. Obama is beatable especially if the economy worsens, or we have another terrorist act on our soil, the UBL "second honeymoon" will expire well before 2012.
What do most Americans voters perceive Obama to be? I think he is a zero as a leader, however to the masses he is consistently presented as bright, smooth, and eloquent.
Reputation is a powerful thing, think of Albert Einstein, his reputation was that of a genius. Once a reputation is established, for better or worse it is very difficult to shake. Your actions will be seen through the lens of your reputation. Einstein could lock himself out of his car 3 times in one day, and folks would smile at the "absent minded" genius. In contrast a man with the reputation for being shady, say a Mafia don, could donate $10 million to the Mayo Clinic, and people would ignore the generosity wondering what's his angle?
What are the perceptions of Sarah Palin, what is her reputation? Unfortunately for her, the presidency is not a contest of whom middle aged American men would care to bed, she is frequently presented as dumb, folksy, and a wildcard, true or not, her actions good or bad, will be seen through this lens. Reagan was also perceived as dumb and folksy initially, but he had the ace in the hole for any politician, charisma. Charisma can change perception. The media cannot control debates, and Reagan dominated in debates.
IMO if it gets to that point, Sarah Palin will ensure Obama is re-elected. It will be similar to the Ross Perot effect in 1992. Conservatives will split their vote between Tea Party candidate Palin, and Republican Romney, and Obama gets four more years.
Politics like most popularity contest is perception and reputation. Obama is beatable especially if the economy worsens, or we have another terrorist act on our soil, the UBL "second honeymoon" will expire well before 2012.
The economy is, in my opinion, the key to the election. If employment and growth improve and the average voter believes he/she has more money in their pocket, with still more to come, then the current office holder will (IMO) win.
However, unless the Fed. Res. and the Treasury do some serious stimulus, then it is likely that the economy will go into a second dip. Keep in mind that jobless claims are above 400,000 for the seventh week in a row. The present recovery is one of the weakest on record. This does not seem to favor an incumbent.
I suppose that Sarah Palin may not be a genius and seems to lack polish. I'm not sure that either attribute is that important. The current office-holder has made some notable gaffes, and his use of a teleprompter is suggestive as well.
Of the various candidates, Sarah Palin seems to be one of the better prospects for defeating the present office-holder. If she is flawed, so are her opponents, IMO. I will be glad to vote for her if I get the chance.
Conservatives will split their vote between Tea Party candidate Palin, and Republican Romney, and Obama gets four more years.
Agreed, planning of 4 more, hoping and praying its not needed. Fighting for the Republican candidate.
ps.,
"Men Wanted: for Hazardous Journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.” -Sir Ernest Shackleton
Great Sig Block
"However, unless the Fed. Res. and the Treasury do some serious stimulus, then it is likely that the economy will go into a second dip. "
When did it get out of the first "dip"? "Stimulus" is cutting taxes, which hasn't been done by this Administration, even though it's been proven to work. Show me the money.
"The present recovery is one of the weakest on record. This does not seem to favor an incumbent."
There's no recovery, Bro, other than the one the newspeople are trying to convince you we're in.
"Sarah Palin seems to be one of the better prospects for defeating the present office-holder. If she is flawed, so are her opponents, IMO. I will be glad to vote for her if I get the chance."
Roger that. :cool:
It's just to early to tell.
The only clear cut beneficiaries of Palin's presidential campaign will be the shareholders of General Electric and Lagardère.
mark46th
05-27-2011, 19:52
Siqaba- Whether she can re-invent herself or not isn't the problem. The media has an unnatural hate/fear of her, they will vilify her mercilessly anytime she appears in public. I have never seen a woman so despised by so many women....
IMO if it gets to that point, Sarah Palin will ensure Obama is re-elected. It will be similar to the Ross Perot effect in 1992. Conservatives will split their vote between Tea Party candidate Palin, and Republican Romney, and Obama gets four more years.
THERE IS NO TEA PARTY! She will run as a Republican. I personally would have liked her to be the head of the RNC; she's a great cheerleader and fund raiser.
Who's your choice?
Pat
PSM, my choice is Romney/Rice, but Condi may the only woman women hate more than Palin.
Dozer523
05-27-2011, 22:40
As a Democrat I've never felt safer.:p
PSM, my choice is Romney/Rice, but Condi may the only woman women hate more than Palin.
I would support Rice on any posting, a very smart woman.
Anyone who has a copy of War and Peace written in Russian sitting on their desk is pretty damn cool.
As a Democrat I've never felt safer.:pAt the rate things are going, the nation could easily go from Rove's predictions of a permanent Republican majority to a historic political realignment in which the Democrats reboot the New Deal coalition.
At the rate things are going, the nation could easily go from Rove's predictions of a permanent Republican majority to a historic political realignment in which the Democrats reboot the New Deal coalition.
Dozer: "As a Democrat I've never felt safer."
Complacency from a couple of Dems?
Listen, you guys are in the minority. Seriously.
You have the media to buttress the propaganda put out by the White House. The media are over 95% Demwit. That's why you seem to have a chance.
You won't have the turnout of budding Socialists you had last election, and the insane policies so far instituted have scared the crap out of normal people.
Case of Carta Blanca says 2012 shakes out a Conservative POTUS.
(Dozer and Sig, only)
Case of Carta Blanca says 2012 shakes out a Conservative POTUS.
If the recent NY election results have any meaning, they'd better keep an eye on who's most likely to vote and who's making noises about restructuring Medicare.
Richard :munchin
Entire post.Where on this BB have I said that I'm a Democrat? There's a difference between political analysis and political preference.
Where on this BB have I said that I'm a Democrat? There's a difference between political analysis and political preference.
Oh. OK, Bro-I'm glad to hear you're Republican.
Bet just goes for The Dozer Man, then.
(;))
Oh. OK, Bro-I'm glad to hear you're Republican.
Bet just goes for The Dozer Man, then.
(;))IMO, it shouldn't matter. A big part of what I find disturbing about political life in America today is that the left and the right see each other as polar opposites rather than sides of the same coin. YMMV.
Dozer523
05-28-2011, 06:33
Dozer: "As a Democrat I've never felt safer."
Complacency from a couple of Dems? . . . Nee ner, nee ner, nee ner.
Seriously though the Re-bumblicans better get someone to the table with some gravitas and stop embarrassing themselves with the likes of Gingrich, Palin, Trump. You show up at the polls with a Reagan or Bush Sr, I'm back.
(Dozer and Sig, only) THAT is just mean. come mere Sig, lemme give you a hug.Oh. OK, Bro-I'm glad to hear you're Republican.
Bet just goes for The Dozer Man, then.(;)) Itsa dirty job, man.
IMO, it shouldn't matter. A big part of what I find disturbing about political life in America today is that the left and the right see each other as polar opposites rather than sides of the same coin. YMMV.
Well, the reason it matters is that the Demwits are fucking the Country up.
greenberetTFS
05-28-2011, 07:00
Will you give you word to shit your pants in public if Palin wins? ;)
Screw it guys,she's a hunter,and has more experience in politics than when BHO was elected.... She also has more GUTS and BALLS to stand up for herself and to holding her ground,not like that back stabling,always blaming others for his failures POTUS..:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
If the recent NY election results have any meaning, they'd better keep an eye on who's most likely to vote and who's making noises about restructuring Medicare.
Richard :munchin
I'll admit that to be an ominously valid point.
The Reaper
05-28-2011, 07:47
I'll admit that to be an ominously valid point.
Ignoring the coming crisis should not count as fixing it.
Both parties better step up and fix this entitlement mess or we are all going to suffer in the long run.
You can beat the drums, and play blame the other party, but the problem is there for all Americans and it is looming larger every day.
Changes made now to fix the programs will be less painful than the changes that will have to be made four years from now.
Acknowledge the problem and deal with it. That is the adult thing to do.
TR
Is there a crisis coming? I'm confident that is the case. Unfortunately, the timing is unknown - and perhaps unknowable.
If we cut government spending, there will be quite a lot of economic pain. From what I read (Endgame by Mauldin, This Time Is Different, Rogoff) the pain could easily extend over 5 years.
The books I mention above point out that this is not an ordinary recession; rather, it is a balance-sheet problem. We owe too much money. We can default on the debt, inflate our way out of it, or attempt to grow our way out. Historically, the longest crises occur when societies seek to grow their way out (This from Endgame, Mauldin)
So...will the voters choose 5 years of pain in order to produce a strong economy at the end of that time? Will they willingly sacrifice some substantial portion of their previous entitlements? And - will the House hold firm through two election cycles along with the White House doing so through one?
I will be surprised if I see the voters choose economic pain prior to the crisis coming upon them.
And if such a crisis comes? Let us refer to the words of an alumnus of the current administration.
Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste "
Video of R. Emanuel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow)
She also has more GUTS and BALLS to stand up for herself and to holding her ground,not like that back stabling,always blaming others for his failures POTUS..
Respectfully Sir, do we know this to be true? Golda Meir had balls, Indira Gandhi had balls, and Margaret Thatcher had one big bulldog ball, all of these ladies overcame all sorts of guff to lead their nations to victory in wars. All we know about Sarah Palin is she is cute, and what we see in scripted reality TV shows. I want Zero to lose in 2012, but IMO he did show some guts with the UBL raid.
Certain people identify with Sarah Palin on whatever aspect. Most youth identified with Obama for various reasons and here we are today. I want Obama to lose but I don't want Palin to win. Can't we get someone who has experience....competent experience?
I want Zero to lose in 2012, but IMO he did show some guts with the UBL raid.
What, exactly, was "gutsy" about it?
I want Obama to lose but I don't want Palin to win.
You can insert any non-Demwit where you have penned "Palin" in your sentence, but logic dictates that no matter who it is, it won't be Obama. You have to decide which you want the most-anybody but Obama or the candidate you would personally cherry-pick.
Why are the failures so obscure to so many people?
If you're worse off now than you were in '08, how is it gonna get better without a change of leadership?
What, exactly, was "gutsy" about it?Any sitting president who authorizes an act of war is taking a considerable political risk.
In the case of this president, the decision was especially risky because (a) it cuts against the grain of various cohorts in his political base, and (b) with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives he has exposed himself to congressional inquiry that might provide a platform for his opponents to rail against his handling of GWOT and American foreign policy/national security more generally.
In regards to the latter, the GOP could ask the White House publicly for information that should remain secret and then argue that the administration is going against its pledge for transparency and change. House Republicans could easily dovetail this line of questioning with other committee inquiries that would highlight the administration's many other inconsistencies. This Machiavellian approach, if properly modulated--a big "if" given the conduct of house Republicans these days--could "wedge" the president's political base and result in millions of Democrats staying at home on election night.
What, exactly, was "gutsy" about it?
Dusty,
IMHO, there was a great deal of risk involved considering the ways, means, and political environment. If we assume Obama and his advisors are ultimately pragmatists with re-election in mind, were they ignorant of the following?
We are already at war in two Islamic countries, and openly supporting the opposition in Libya. Pakistan is Islamic and an ally, though one who runs with both the hounds and the hares, a large populous country with a large military and nuclear weapons. The political climate there, and ISI motivation is unstable at best, we currently need their supply routes to conduct ongoing operations in Afghanistan, a card they recently used to bash us with over the Raymond Davis issue, an issue where they jailed someone protected by diplomatic immunity for defending himself from ambush. This is the environment in Pakistan.
Obama ordered US boots to violate sovereign soil, an act of war with a country with the means previously stated, to hit a high value target of national US interest. He didn't just order a missile, drone, or airstrike, or tip the Pakistanis off to do it for us. What if the intelligence was faulty, or the ISI screwed us again, and we sent our troops into an AQ ambush, with the result of numerous choppers shot down, dead Americans, dead civilians, and Pakistani forces left holding Americans for transgressions of their soil? How ugly could things have gotten, wars have started over much, much less?
Whatever his motivations, it was a tough call, the economy is in the gutter, he is perceived as weak on foreign policy, a Blackhawk Down type scenario could have wrecked his ratings even lower. I don't like the guy, he is bad for America, but objectively given the risks, even if you are cynical about his motivations, as if Americans need any excuse other than 9/11 to kill UBL, don't you have to give credit where credit is due? Previous administrations on both sides of the aisle have taken the less risky application of force route, to America's detriment, or for those took great risk, what did Desert One do for Carter?
Dusty,
IMHO, there was a great deal of risk involved considering the ways, means, and political environment. If we assume Obama and his advisors are ultimately pragmatists with re-election in mind, were they ignorant of the following?
We are already at war in two Islamic countries, and openly supporting the opposition in Libya. Pakistan is Islamic and an ally, though one who runs with both the hounds and the hares, a large populous country with a large military and nuclear weapons. The political climate there, and ISI motivation is unstable at best, we currently need their supply routes to conduct ongoing operations in Afghanistan, a card they recently used to bash us with over the Raymond Davis issue, an issue where they jailed someone protected by diplomatic immunity for defending himself from ambush. This is the environment in Pakistan.
Obama ordered US boots to violate sovereign soil, an act of war with a country with the means previously stated, to hit a high value target of national US interest. He didn't just order a missile, drone, or airstrike, or tip the Pakistanis off to do it for us. What if the intelligence was faulty, or the ISI screwed us again, and we sent our troops into an AQ ambush, with the result of numerous choppers shot down, dead Americans, dead civilians, and Pakistani forces left holding Americans for transgressions of their soil? How ugly could things have gotten, wars have started over much, much less?
Whatever his motivations, it was a tough call, the economy is in the gutter, he is perceived as weak on foreign policy, a Blackhawk Down type scenario could have wrecked his ratings even lower. I don't like the guy, he is bad for America, but objectively given the risks, even if you are cynical about his motivations, as if Americans need any excuse other than 9/11 to kill UBL, don't you have to give credit where credit is due? Previous administrations on both sides of the aisle have taken the less risky application of force route, to America's detriment.
Did he actually do all of these things? Or did he only give the ok after being badgered by others in his administration? I am sure you have all seen the controversies about this, from there being some sort of deal made with Afghan officials 10 years ago that allow them to keep face while allowing us to get him; to the decisions actually being made by a high level committee which included Hillary and others.
By Obama's past actions when dealing with muslim countries, I personally don't believe he had the balls to make this decision on his own. I think he was coerced into doing it and took the credit for political reasons. A raid like that just doesn't fit his M.O.
Originally Posted by Dusty
What, exactly, was "gutsy" about it?
As for him being gutsy, I don't buy it. He took a calculated risk with his political career as most Presidents do, not his life. Others lives of course but, not his own. He also has the media, his fellow Dems, and his fanatical wing on belay. Obama made a decision that is finally one we can agree upon, and since this is a reflection upon his leadership, it is still just one of many decisions he's made with the overwhelming vast majority of them bad. Our military guts, his glory.
Same as it ever was....jd
Dusty,
IMHO, there was a great deal of risk involved considering the ways, means, and political environment. If we assume Obama and his advisors are ultimately pragmatists with re-election in mind, were they ignorant of the following?
We are already at war in two Islamic countries, and openly supporting the opposition in Libya. Pakistan is Islamic and an ally, though one who runs with both the hounds and the hares, a large populous country with a large military and nuclear weapons. The political climate there, and ISI motivation is unstable at best, we currently need their supply routes to conduct ongoing operations in Afghanistan, a card they recently used to bash us with over the Raymond Davis issue, an issue where they jailed someone protected by diplomatic immunity for defending himself from ambush. This is the environment in Pakistan.
Obama ordered US boots to violate sovereign soil, an act of war with a country with the means previously stated, to hit a high value target of national US interest. He didn't just order a missile, drone, or airstrike, or tip the Pakistanis off to do it for us. What if the intelligence was faulty, or the ISI screwed us again, and we sent our troops into an AQ ambush, with the result of numerous choppers shot down, dead Americans, dead civilians, and Pakistani forces left holding Americans for transgressions of their soil? How ugly could things have gotten, wars have started over much, much less?
Whatever his motivations, it was a tough call, the economy is in the gutter, he is perceived as weak on foreign policy, a Blackhawk Down type scenario could have wrecked his ratings even lower. I don't like the guy, he is bad for America, but objectively given the risks, even if you are cynical about his motivations, as if Americans need any excuse other than 9/11 to kill UBL, don't you have to give credit where credit is due? Previous administrations on both sides of the aisle have taken the less risky application of force route, to America's detriment, or for those took great risk, what did Desert One do for Carter?
IMHO, there was a great deal of risk involved considering the ways, means, and political environment.
The risk was to get caught avoiding OBL a la BJ Clinton.
If we assume Obama and his advisors are ultimately pragmatists with re-election in mind, were they ignorant of the following?
We are already at war in two Islamic countries, and openly supporting the opposition in Libya.
Yes. We're still in a war he was elected to get us out of, using intelligence techniques he was elected to discontinue to elicit intel from prisoners from a facility he was elected to dissolve. It's called "desperation".
Pakistan is Islamic and an ally, though one who runs with both the hounds and the hares, a large populous country with a large military and nuclear weapons. The political climate there, and ISI motivation is unstable at best, we currently need their supply routes to conduct ongoing operations in Afghanistan, a card they recently used to bash us with over the Raymond Davis issue, an issue where they jailed someone protected by diplomatic immunity for defending himself from ambush. This is the environment in Pakistan.
Obama ordered US boots to violate sovereign soil, an act of war with a country with the means previously stated, to hit a high value target of national US interest. He didn't just order a missile, drone, or airstrike, or tip the Pakistanis off to do it for us. What if the intelligence was faulty, or the ISI screwed us again, and we sent our troops into an AQ ambush, with the result of numerous choppers shot down, dead Americans, dead civilians, and Pakistani forces left holding Americans for transgressions of their soil? How ugly could things have gotten, wars have started over much, much less?
WTF are they gonna do? Deport all the Kwik Shop managers? They live off of our hospitality, dude!
Whatever his motivations, it was a tough call, the economy is in the gutter, he is perceived as weak on foreign policy, a Blackhawk Down type scenario could have wrecked his ratings even lower. I don't like the guy, he is bad for America, but objectively given the risks, even if you are cynical about his motivations, as if Americans need any excuse other than 9/11 to kill UBL, don't you have to give credit where credit is due? Previous administrations on both sides of the aisle have taken the less risky application of force route, to America's detriment, or for those took great risk, what did Desert One do for Carter?
Carter wasn't on that op, either. You are a No Go at the Explanation Station.
Look, you may feel bad about voting for him. He may still have you bamboozled. But don't buy into the "tingle up my leg" shit so easily, Bro.
Radar Rider
05-28-2011, 17:33
Would you be happy enough to send her a check if she was within 7 points of beating your ass when every college student, minority, metrosexual and politically-challenged female in the Country was having an Obamagasm over the hopey-changey bullshit?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/election_2008/presidential_final_results.html
Have you seen his approval polls lately?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
It indexed from a positive 28 to a negative 12. That's a 40-point drop.
It's too early to count anybody out, right now.
Like I say-I don't give a rat's ass who wins, as long as it's not a Democrat.
You can't go by what the major news networks say-they're Obamabots...
You and I both know that the disgusting attacks against Sarah Palin are MSM driven, because they FEAR her.
You can't accuse the Republican Party of bigotry if the candidate is a woman.
Do I think that she's the best candidate to lead our country? Really, no. Is she better than the present occupant of the Whitehouse? What number is bigger than a Brazilian?
rdet1-entire post
Sir, none of us know the details, he may well have been badgered as you suggest etc. At the end of the day as the CinC ultimately he made the decision, our troops performed admirably and justice was done, doesn't he bear the ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of command? We blast Clinton (deservedly) for failing to get UBL when the opportunity presented itself prior to 9/11, how can we then claim objectivity if we don't acknowledge success under Zero?
uplink5-entire post
Sir, I agree 99% of his decisions have been crap, this one succeeded, he could have chosen less risky options that failed. I'm saying he made a gutsy call, not that he is gutsy.
Dusty-Entire Post
Sir, Pakistan is not Libya, neither am I suggesting they are a threat to US sovereignty, given our current needs, their location and means they could easily become a much greater problem, why not let them save face?
As the CinC, isn't the POTUS ultimately responsible for military operations ordered on his watch? Has a sitting US President ever personally led our troops into battle, is this his job?
Finally Dusty, is it as simple as Republican = good, Democrat = bad, my experience is absolutes are rare, and asshats don't discriminate, there are high character Democrats, and corrupt Republicans out there. If I disagree with you, and explain my views, specifically 99% of Obama's actions are crap, but believe he should get credit for one good call, how do you infer (incorrectly btw) that I am a Democrat or voted for Zero? I am just not as far to the right as you.
What number is bigger than a Brazilian?
Uh, Samoan? :confused:
Pat
As the CinC, isn't the POTUS ultimately responsible for military operations ordered on his watch? Has a sitting US President ever personally led our troops into battle, is this his job?
Finally Dusty, is it as simple as Republican = good, Democrat = bad, my experience is absolutes are rare, and asshats don't discriminate, there are high character Democrats, and corrupt Republicans out there. If I disagree with you, and explain my views, specifically 99% of Obama's actions are crap, but believe he should get credit for one good call, how do you infer (incorrectly btw) that I am a Democrat or voted for Zero? I am just not as far to the right as you.
As the CinC, isn't the POTUS ultimately responsible for military operations ordered on his watch? Has a sitting US President ever personally led our troops into battle, is this his job? No, it's not. So, again-why call him literally not doing anything "ballsy"?
Finally Dusty, is it as simple as Republican = good, Democrat = bad, my experience is absolutes are rare, and asshats don't discriminate, there are high character Democrats, and corrupt Republicans out there. If I disagree with you, and explain my views, specifically 99% of Obama's actions are crap, but believe he should get credit for one good call, how do you infer (incorrectly btw) that I am a Democrat or voted for Zero? I am just not as far to the right as you
lol It's not hard for me to accept the fact that you're not as far to the right as I am. To me, it's more like Conservatives are good, Progressives are bad. I myself have seen plenty of bad Repubs and good Demo...wait, no, I havent seen many good Democrats, to tell the truth.
How you vote is up to you. Your repeating the lib talking point "gutsy move"
in two different posts led me to ascertain your Demwittedness.
I'm glad I was mistaken.
Radar Rider
05-28-2011, 19:29
Uh, Samoan? :confused:
Pat
Negatron, Batman.
Sir, I agree 99% of his decisions have been crap, this one succeeded, he could have chosen less risky options that failed. I'm saying he made a gutsy call, not that he is gutsy.
Actually, you said: "he did show some guts with the UBL raid". I do understand though that you meant the call and not the man. Fair enough....but, his fan base would have the world believe otherwise.
IMHO, it was a calculated political risk more than a gutsy call....
I simply won't bestow the "gutsy" description as lightly as those in the media or the political persuasion do, especially when his motives were more from a political motive than militarily. As a military HVT, was he really worth men’s lives put at risk when we could have used other options? I'm not so sure. OBL was not running the war from his bedroom/war room; he was spanking the monkey and pacing his courtyard. Obama did need proof though and that was his justification. Does that make it worth mens lives?
I'm glad he is dead and Obla-bla-blama does deserve credit for this but, if Bush had approved this opn and conducted himself as Obama has, and one or more of those SEALs was hurt or killed, what would the narrative been like in our press, given our other options?
I'm also quite put off at how much intel from this target is "leaked" and perhaps even created in order to rationalize and sensationalize this opn and OBLs military worth. As far as I'm concerned, Obama's only milking it for more political worth for as long as he can. It's too much to do about a man who it seems had little to no effect on operations in AQI or Taliban operations other than as the provider of a targeting dream list........jd
The Reaper
05-28-2011, 20:29
What mistake has BHO accepted personal responsibility for so far?
Panetta was the fall guy for this op if it went bad. Obama was hands off and had to be coerced into making the call.
I would fire a Junior 18B for being that "ballsy".
TR
When was the last time any presidential candidate rode with Rolling Thunder?
http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/9658924/
Rolling Thunder 2003. RIP, Rick. Van, Grit and I won't forget ya.
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
05-30-2011, 14:55
When was the last time any presidential candidate rode with Rolling Thunder?
http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/9658924/
Right on,she's certainly got a set of cojones that's for sure......:D;):D
Big Teddy :munchin
Right on,she's certainly got a set of cojones that's for sure......:D;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Amigo, I've got cojones.
Those are called tetas. :D
ZonieDiver
05-30-2011, 15:21
As the CinC, isn't the POTUS ultimately responsible for military operations ordered on his watch? Has a sitting US President ever personally led our troops into battle, is this his job?
Didn't "Little Jimmy" Madison ride off to rally the troops defending DC as the Brits approached to take and burn it... as his wife saved stuff from the White House?
Radar Rider
06-24-2011, 20:39
Uh, Samoan? :confused:
Pat
It's a joke, dude. A million, a billion, and a Brazillion.
It's a joke, dude. A million, a billion, and a Brazillion.
So was mine. ;)
Pat
Rolling Thunder 2003. RIP, Rick. Van, Grit and I won't forget ya.
Richard :munchin
Darn Richard....GREAT to see that pic..Rick was my TM CWO in 3/5 for a bit before he went to work for, I believe it was Felton Moore.
Awsome guy...RIP Rick.
It saddened me very much to hear of his passing, MC accident wasn't it???
Damn shame..
Saturation
10-05-2011, 19:37
And then she didn't....
No doubt she'll remain in the limelight!
Utah Bob
10-07-2011, 15:09
And then she didn't....
No doubt she'll remain in the limelight!
And that's okay. I like looking at her.
I just turn the sound down....;)
greenberetTFS
10-07-2011, 15:38
Amigo, I've got cojones.
Those are called tetas.
:D
Dusty,
I should have addressed this a while back.....I lifted up her dress,their Cojones!!!......;)
Big Teddy :munchin