• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin Calls Obama a Liar in Speech to Conservative Activists......

TheNextEra said:
LOL just proves how partisan you really are and how much the right doesn't really care about this country, they only care about winning an election so THEY can be the big spenders. As long as it is YOUR guy in office you and others on the right will vote for them REGARDLESS of their spending or increasing of the government. Pathetic and hypocritical of the right.
Click to expand...

There are partisans on both sides who that description. I'm just surprised anyone is still listening to Palin. ;)
 
APACHERAT said:
polgara said:
You know how President Obama bows to Kings and Queens ?

Carter did the same by appeasing to a Latin American dictator, Gen. Torrijos.

Basically the Panamanians believed they owned the canal. Legally under international law, the canal was legally with in a territorial possession of the United States aka "U.S. Canal Zone." It's a military strategic position for quick access from the Atlantic to the Pacific, vice versa. Today a Communist Chinese company which is just a front for the Communist Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) operate the Panama Canal.

Do you have any utility easements running through your property like electric, phone, cable lines or gas lines ? Try telling those utilities that you actually own those utility lines, they'll laugh at you.

The Panama Canal was paid and built by the American tax payers. It was sovereign U.S. territory.
Click to expand...

Can one man, even the POTUS, give away something that belongs to the people, just on his say-so? Where was the outrage? :(
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
There are partisans on both sides who that description. I'm just surprised anyone is still listening to Palin. ;)
Click to expand...

True that there are partisans on both sides any argument. I tell ya what I am surprised at, that is that anyone is still listening to Howard Dean.....;)


See how that works when you give a partisan offering trying to mask it with a preface trying to make yourself out to NOT be partisan?
 
j-mac said:
True that there are partisans on both sides any argument. I tell ya what I am surprised at, that is that anyone is still listening to Howard Dean.....;)


See how that works when you give a partisan offering trying to mask it with a preface trying to make yourself out to NOT be partisan?
Click to expand...

I haven't hear Dean in a long time. Have you?

I've listed liberals I wouldn't listen: Oberman, or Sharpton, or any political entertainer or political hack. The comment was about Palin specifically and not her party. Her, personally. Know the difference.
 
Boo Radley said:
I haven't hear Dean in a long time. Have you?
Click to expand...

Yep, he is often on MSNBC.

I've listed liberals I wouldn't listen: Oberman, or Sharpton, or any political entertainer or political hack.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what ever...Listening to your talking points, and knowing your posting history, and where you stand on issues, I find that hard to believe...But in the long run it really makes no difference what you listen to....

The comment was about Palin specifically and not her party.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it is a political board, and the move is to tie her to a broad generalization of the party, or at least certain sections of the party. You know that.

Know the difference.
Click to expand...

Keep it civil, or blow it ..... Ah well....:roll:
 
j-mac said:
Yep, he is often on MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't know.

Yeah, what ever...Listening to your talking points, and knowing your posting history, and where you stand on issues, I find that hard to believe...But in the long run it really makes no difference what you listen to....
Click to expand...

You should listen to understand more and see talking points less. Just a helpful suggestion.

Yeah, but it is a political board, and the move is to tie her to a broad generalization of the party, or at least certain sections of the party. You know that.
Click to expand...

Maybe in your mind. But I reserve the right to comment on individuals regardless of party. Too many idiots on both side to have them as representatives for entire parties.


Keep it civil, or blow it ..... Ah well....:roll:
Click to expand...

Wasn't uncivil.
 
Boo Radley said:
Wouldn't know.



You should listen to understand more and see talking points less. Just a helpful suggestion.



Maybe in your mind. But I reserve the right to comment on individuals regardless of party. Too many idiots on both side to have them as representatives for entire parties.




Wasn't uncivil.
Click to expand...

Well, I suggest that you go back and read the thread again then. You can comment on anything you like, doesn't make your comments correct, or anything other than just another opinion. as for the civility, ask yourself how you would react to someone in real life you are having a conversation with that ends a sentence with "know the difference"....I would venture a guess that it would be taken negatively....
 
American said:
Your wishful thinking isn't going to change the fact that they never found anything.
Click to expand...

Regardless:

Republican Alaska State Representative Mike Hawker stated that quitting "gives her unfettered ability to pursue her economic interests, whether it be a book deal or speeches ... without being cluttered by state ethics law."[15] Alaska U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, said she was "deeply disappointed that the governor has decided to abandon the state and her constituents before her term has concluded."[2] Former Alaska governor Tony Knowles, the Democrat Palin defeated for governor in 2006, said that "he closed a chapter in Alaska politics on a very weird and bizarre note... Friends or foes alike would have never thought that she would be a quitter, but that's what she did today."[16] Congressman Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, said: "I don't know of anyone who has successfully and voluntarily pulled themselves out of political office and been able to leverage that into more political success"
Resignation of Sarah Palin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
poweRob said:
What the hell? I said slam THEM for bringing up an even further past president as you did me for retorting with Bush.

Where is the reading comprehension?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point or intent..
 
polgara said:
APACHERAT said:
Can one man, even the POTUS, give away something that belongs to the people, just on his say-so? Where was the outrage? :(
Click to expand...

Building the Panama Canal, 1903-1914:
>" President Theodore Roosevelt oversaw the realization of a long-term United States goal—a trans-isthmian canal. Throughout the 1800s, American and British leaders and businessmen wanted to ship goods quickly and cheaply between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

To that end, in 1850 the United States and Great Britain negotiated the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty to reign in rivalry over a proposed canal through the Central American Republic of Nicaragua. The Anglo-American canal, however, never went beyond the planning stages. French attempts to build a canal through Panama (province of Colombia) advanced further. Led by Ferdinand de Lesseps—the builder of the Suez Canal in Egypt—the French began excavating in 1880. Malaria, yellow fever, and other tropical diseases conspired against the de Lesseps campaign and after 9 years and a loss of approximately 20,000 lives, the French attempt went bankrupt. In spite of such setbacks, American interest in a canal continued unabated. The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 abrogated the earlier Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and licensed the United States to build and manage its own canal. Following heated debate over the location of the proposed canal, on June 19, 1902, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of building the canal through Panama. Within 6 months, Secretary of State John Hay signed a treaty with Colombian Foreign Minister Tomás Herrán to build the new canal. The financial terms were unacceptable to Colombia’s congress, and it rejected the offer.

President Roosevelt responded by dispatching U.S. warships to Panama City (on the Pacific) and Colón (on the Atlantic) in support of Panamanian independence. Colombian troops were unable to negotiate the jungles of the Darien Strait and Panama declared independence on November 3, 1903. The newly declared Republic of Panama immediately named Philippe Bunau-Varilla (a French engineer who had been involved in the earlier de Lesseps canal attempt) as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. In his new role, Bunau-Varilla negotiated the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903, which provided the United States with a 10-mile wide strip of land for the canal, a one-time $10 million payment to Panama, and an annual annuity of $250,000. The United States also agreed to guarantee the independence of Panama. Completed in 1914, the Panama Canal symbolized U.S. technological prowess and economic power. Although U.S. control of the canal eventually became an irritant to U.S.-Panamanian relations, at the time it was heralded as a major foreign policy achievement. "< Office of the Historian - Milestones - 1899-1913 - Building the Panama Canal

>" From its inception, there were intermittent disputes over interpretation of the treaty and charges of U.S. discrimination against Panamanians in the zone. In 1978 two new treaties were concluded detailing the steps by which the United States would transfer to Panama full control over the zone and the canal in the year 2000.

International status
The Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty was an irritant to Panamanian sensibilities from the moment it was signed. It had been written and negotiated for the infant republic by Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, a French citizen who had not been in Panama for 18 years and who later openly admitted that he was willing for Panama to pay any price to ensure acceptance of the treaty by the U.S. Senate. The most onerous part of the treaty, in the Panamanian view, was the right granted to the United States to act in the entire 16-km- (10-mile-) wide, ocean-to-ocean Canal Zone as “if it were the sovereign.” Thus, the Canal Zone became in effect a foreign colony that bisected Panama, despite Theodore Roosevelt’s declaration in 1906 that no such result was intended. As eventually constituted by the middle of the century, the Canal Zone was administered by an American governor appointed by the U.S. president. Judicial matters were settled before magistrates appointed by the governor or by a circuit court judge appointed by the president. The governor was ex-officio a director and president of the Panama Canal Company, an American corporate body whose directors were charged with operating and maintaining the canal in a businesslike manner. In order to guarantee operation of the canal in the event of war, U.S. military units were stationed in the Canal Zone.

Some of the harsher effects of the 1903 treaty were ameliorated by subsequent treaties, principally those of 1936 and 1955. The United States relinquished its claimed right to acquire additional lands and waters adjacent to the canal, granted Panamanian control over the ports at Colón and Panama City, and brought the wages of Panamanians employed in the Canal Zone closer to the level of Americans. But the Panamanians continued to press for more drastic changes, including eventual full sovereignty over the canal. After years of negotiation, agreement was reached between the two governments in 1977. The Panama Canal Treaty was signed on September 7 of that year by General Omar Torrijos Herrera of Panama and President Jimmy Carter of the United States. It terminated all prior treaties between the United States and Panama concerning the canal and also abolished the Canal Zone. The treaty recognized Panama as territorial sovereign in the former Canal Zone, but it gave the United States the right to continue managing, operating, and maintaining the canal and to use lands and waters necessary for those purposes during a transition period of 20 years covered by the agreement. The treaty also provided for joint study of the feasibility of a sea-level canal and gave the United States the right to add a third lane of locks to the existing canal. The treaty went into effect on October 1, 1979, and expired on December 31, 1999.

The 1977 treaty was supplemented by a separate, but interrelated, Neutrality Treaty that also went into effect in 1979 but has no termination date. Under the Neutrality Treaty the United States and Panama guarantee the permanent neutrality of the canal, with nondiscriminatory tolls and access for all nations; U.S. and Panamanian warships, however, are entitled to expeditious passage. No nation other than Panama may operate the canal or maintain military installations within Panamanian territory. The United States, however, reserved the right to use military force, if necessary, to keep the canal open; this was, in part, the rationale behind the U.S. military intervention in Panama in 1989–90, which, nonetheless, did not prevent the canal from being closed down for about a day in December 1989.

The U.S. Senate ratified the two treaties in 1978, after one of the lengthiest treaty debates in American history. The treaties were then implemented into U.S. domestic law by the Panama Canal Act of 1979. This act, among other things, established the Panama Canal Commission, which replaced both the Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone government. The commission was controlled by a board consisting of five American and four Panamanian members. Until 1990 the administrator was an American and the assistant administrator a Panamanian national; after 1990 the roles were reversed, and Panamanians assumed the leadership position. The function of the commission was somewhat different from its predecessor, as activities not directly related to the canal, such as maintenance and operation of terminals and the Panama Canal Railway, were transferred to Panama in preparation for the final turnover. With the turnover of the canal in December 1999, the Panama Canal Authority assumed complete responsibility for the canal.

The international status of the canal also is affected by two older treaties. In the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901, the United Kingdom gave up its interest in an isthmian canal. And, while the United States was free to take any measures in order to protect a canal, it agreed that there would be “entire equality” in the treatment of ships of all nations with respect to “conditions and charges of traffic.” In the Thompson-Urrutia Treaty of 1914, the government-owned vessels of Colombia were exempted from paying tolls. '< continue -> Panama Canal (canal, Central America) : International status -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
True that there are partisans on both sides any argument. I tell ya what I am surprised at, that is that anyone is still listening to Howard Dean.....;)


See how that works when you give a partisan offering trying to mask it with a preface trying to make yourself out to NOT be partisan?
Click to expand...

There is no moral equivalence between the subliteracy of Palin and her retrograde xenophobic "ideas" and progressive trying to make the nation a better place for hard working people.
 
head of joaquin said:
Every major improvement and modernization of the country and the rights of its citizens in the last 100 years.

NEXT SOFTBALL!
Click to expand...


The Democratic Party has become the sweetheart dealing shills for corporate American and the neocons, and the enemy of individual and human rights.
 
head of joaquin said:
Every major improvement and modernization of the country and the rights of its citizens in the last 100 years.

NEXT SOFTBALL!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we were talking about the real accomplishments.....not the award for just playing. :mrgreen:

Also you cannot Progress to the next level until you win that game at Pinning the Tail on the Donkey. :2razz:
 
j-mac said:
Well, I suggest that you go back and read the thread again then. You can comment on anything you like, doesn't make your comments correct, or anything other than just another opinion. as for the civility, ask yourself how you would react to someone in real life you are having a conversation with that ends a sentence with "know the difference"....I would venture a guess that it would be taken negatively....
Click to expand...

I have a sense of humor and would react just fine.

And I always comment on what I like. ;)
 
joko104 said:
The Democratic Party has become the sweetheart dealing shills for corporate American and the neocons, and the enemy of individual and human rights.
Click to expand...

But of course conservatives defend corporations and their shills so this criticism is dishonest.

Let's see, which party is "anti-business" according to the Tea Party Continuum? Opps, your memes are stepping on each other. Make up your mind!
 
MMC said:
Yeah, but we were talking about the real accomplishments.....not the award for just playing. :mrgreen:

Also you cannot Progress to the next level until you win that game at Pinning the Tail on the Donkey. :2rfrefazz:
Click to expand...

Wow, is this a rebuttal or not. Not.
 
Why is this news?

A notorious dishonest 1/2-term governor not known for her intellectual abilities tosses out red meat to her shrinking fan base and... so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom