Sarah Palin plans to run for POTUS.........

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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.

Originally Posted by Dusty

(Dozer and Sig, only)

THAT is just mean. come mere Sig, lemme give you a hug.

Originally Posted by Dusty

Oh. OK, Bro-I'm glad to hear you're Republican.
Bet just goes for The Dozer Man, then.()

Itsa dirty job, man.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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..

Big Teddy

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

I'll admit that to be an ominously valid point.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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

[nmap]

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

[akv]

Originally Posted by GreenberetTFS

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.

[Wiseman]

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?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by akv

I want Zero to lose in 2012, but IMO he did show some guts with the UBL raid.

What, exactly, was "gutsy" about it?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Wiseman

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?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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?

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by akv

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.

[uplink5]

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]

Originally Posted by akv

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.