• 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!

Drop a nuclear bomb on Russia to stop the Crimea from becoming part of Russia?

Is Palin right, should Obama use the threat of nukes to stop Putin?

  • Yes, Palin was right, threaten and use nuclear weapons to Putin in Crimea crisis

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, Palin is wrong, threatening with nukes is insane

    Votes: 31 67.4%

  • Yes, sadly Palin is not VP/President or Putin would now be a glowstick/dead

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • No, thank goodness Palin did not become VP/President or we would all be glowsticks/dead

    Votes: 12 26.1%

  • Sarah who?

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Total voters
    46
Proud South Korean said:
Ignoring the OP which took her comments out of context, I'll address your last point.
There's a difference in having different opinions and being a loony. I doubt you have much tolerance or patience for CT people or people who go out of their way to say "Blah America bad blah" because it's simply not a difference of opinion, it's a difference of sanity.
Likewise what Palin preaches and stands for is mostly ignorance, populism, and backwardness. Admittedly it's been a long time since I was somewhat familiar with her (and it's been a long time since she's been relevant) but that was what I believed then and now.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "CT people."

I can handle a difference of opinion. I can respectfully disagree with a difference of opinion. When people like you call others stupid, that are not...

She had a different education. That doesn't make her stupid. Ignorance on a topic is not stupid, nor does it mean one cannot learn. If you actually try to relate to her, you will see she is actually one smart cookie. She isn't a top notch public speaker, but she is getting better.

There is nothing ignorant, popular, or backwards of what she likes to speak about. That is a rare quality, whereas she can speak about things less popular, and people listen. The people who don't either prefer Charlatans over real people, or are polar opposites anyway.
 
I suppose the later.....as I do not like the party being ridiculed, and you are not the first to call me a RINO.

Actually.....I think I am getting comfortable with the label, and considering shedding the first letter completely if only because the implication would be the party no longer wants me, or my vote.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't know what you mean by "CT people."

I can handle a difference of opinion. I can respectfully disagree with a difference of opinion. When people like you call others stupid, that are not...

She had a different education. That doesn't make her stupid. Ignorance on a topic is not stupid, nor does it mean one cannot learn. If you actually try to relate to her, you will see she is actually one smart cookie. She isn't a top notch public speaker, but she is getting better.

There is nothing ignorant, popular, or backwards of what she likes to speak about. That is a rare quality, whereas she can speak about things less popular, and people listen. The people who don't either prefer Charlatans over real people, or are polar opposites anyway.
Click to expand...

Have it your way then :shrug:
FYI CT people stands for Conspiracy Theory people. The proper term would be conspiracy theorist but given the nature of the Interwebz, it just evolved into CTers.
 
tacomancer said:
Republicans WANT to be laughed at then? que?
Click to expand...

She is no laughing matter to most reasonable people. I hate to say what I think of some of you for thinking otherwise.

What do you laugh about? Seeing Russia from her house?

A slip here and there?

Do you really want someone who appears to walk on water, when the camera is on?

I don't know about you, but I want a real person.
 
Lord of Planar said:
She is no laughing matter to most reasonable people. I hate to say what I think of some of you for thinking otherwise.

What do you laugh about? Seeing Russia from her house?

A slip here and there?

Do you really want someone who appears to walk on water, when the camera is on?

I don't know about you, but I want a real person.
Click to expand...

I don't care if the person is real or not. I care about having someone do a job that I would like them to do. We haven't had a president able to do that since Clinton unfortunately.
 
Lord of Planar What do you laugh about? Seeing Russia from her house?
Click to expand...
This phrase coined scoundrel Maher. And you repeat it viciously. And you repeat it viciously. And you repeat it viciously.
 
tacomancer said:
I don't care if the person is real or not. I care about having someone do a job that I would like them to do. We haven't had a president able to do that since Clinton unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Clinton didn't do much. He was at the right place at the right time. The economic boom was not his. He didn't shape the semiconductor industry boom internet boom, etc. He was just lucky.
 
loader said:
This phrase coined scoundrel Maher. And you repeat it viciously. And you repeat it viciously. And you repeat it viciously.
Click to expand...
Yep.

It amazes me that Tina Fey can say such a thing in a comedy skit, playing Palin, and people think Palin really said it!

I swear. We do need an intelligence test for voters.
 
In my 9 years as a member of DP this has to be one of the dumbest polls I have ever seen.
 
Peter King said:
Yes, that is why she berated on Obama being weak towards Putin to then state that to stop a bad guy you need a good guy with a nuclear weapon. You might not think those comments are linked by I disagree (as does that Dutch newspaper among others).
Click to expand...

She is an idiot but I don't think that is what she meant. I could very easily be wrong because she says so many convoluted and stupid things. Hell, I have no idea why I would defend her but to me it sounds like she is saying it as a deterrent.
 
Bodhisattva said:
She is an idiot but I don't think that is what she meant. I could very easily be wrong because she says so many convoluted and stupid things. Hell, I have no idea why I would defend her but to me it sounds like she is saying it as a deterrent.
Click to expand...
That is what she is doing. She is speaking of not weakening our forces, and speaks of it after gun control. Watch the video, or clip I linked. posts 9, or post 28 for just the short clip.
 
Bodhisattva said:
She is an idiot but I don't think that is what she meant. I could very easily be wrong because she says so many convoluted and stupid things. Hell, I have no idea why I would defend her but to me it sounds like she is saying it as a deterrent.
Click to expand...

But that statement from the NRA and the comments about Russia cannot be seen independent of another. Talking about liberal gun control views ought to have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. There are currently 2 bad countries with confirmed nuclear weapons, Russia and China. Seeing that she talked about Russia, the Russian empire etc. IMHO this nuclear weapon comment cannot be seen separately from her remarks about Obama not challenging Putin.

The NRA was not talking about deterring criminals with a gun by the chance that they will encounter a good man with a gun and then stopping their "criminal activities".

All of these remarks cannot be seen separate from one and another. That at least is my opinion and others from what I have read see it the same way. Now this too will be very contentious because some will view this through political pre-conceptions, that I too have, I dislike Palin a lot, or better said the way she voices her vitriolic opinions.
 
loader said:
You just talentless provocateur.
Click to expand...

Yes, wow, I must be the first person ever to post such a thread with a controversial comment/premise at the basis of it.
 
Peter King said:
But that statement from the NRA and the comments about Russia cannot be seen independent of another. Talking about liberal gun control views ought to have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. There are currently 2 bad countries with confirmed nuclear weapons, Russia and China. Seeing that she talked about Russia, the Russian empire etc. IMHO this nuclear weapon comment cannot be seen separately from her remarks about Obama not challenging Putin.

The NRA was not talking about deterring criminals with a gun by the chance that they will encounter a good man with a gun and then stopping their "criminal activities".

All of these remarks cannot be seen separate from one and another. That at least is my opinion and others from what I have read see it the same way. Now this too will be very contentious because some will view this through political pre-conceptions, that I too have, I dislike Palin a lot, or better said the way she voices her vitriolic opinions.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I admit I am not aware of the whole story.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The premise in the OP is at fault. Sarah never implied such a thing, but that how the media portrayed it, and how lemmings believe BS. that's why I posted the link to Sarah speaking as CPAC. Have a look yourself. Post number 9. Start the video at 22 minutes.
Click to expand...

This liberal will back you up on that. It was stunningly dishonest to claim that Palin was advocating the use of nukes. That kind of dishonesty is the sort if thing that destroys real dialogue and problem solving.
 
Dezaad said:
This liberal will back you up on that. It was stunningly dishonest to claim that Palin was advocating the use of nukes. That kind of dishonesty is the sort if thing that destroys real dialogue and problem solving.
Click to expand...

These kind of attacks are also why she remains so popular among conservatives (and how she has made millions of dollars.) If Democrats or liberals really want to silence and disempower her, ignore her. How many times now have Democrats in the extreme desire to destroy her have given her the status of the unfairly derided conservative Republican female?
Her status is built upon it.
 
NoC_T said:
I keep thinking there must be some reason Palin isn't unemployed, but for the life of me, I can't quite figure out why anyone would want to keep her around.
Click to expand...

Because Democrats apparently want her center stage.
 
Peter King said:
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of hers, but we all know what she meant. A country that has nukes and malicious intent can do essentially whatever they want, unless another country with good intent and nukes stands up to it. That isn't a suggestion to use nukes in war.
 
joko104 said:
These kind of attacks are also why she remains so popular among conservatives (and how she has made millions of dollars.) If Democrats or liberals really want to silence and disempower her, ignore her. How many times now have Democrats in the extreme desire to destroy her have given her the status of the unfairly derided conservative Republican female?
Her status is built upon it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Liberals failed to see that the fair derision leveled at her would be seen as unfair. I never tire of relating the story of my first 5 minutes of being aware of Sarah Palin. When the news report started, they were describing her and her credentials, and so forth, and stating that McCain had selected her. At that point, I was like "wow, McCain may have just won the election". Then they played a clip of her. My analysis did a complete flip and I thought instead, with a fair amount of surprise, glee and relief, that McCain had just sealed his defeat.

My view of her lack of intellectual ability was honest, unanticipated and sincere. It has only strengthened over all the years since. It is indeed fascinating to me to consider: Are the Republicans actually really shrewd? Patronizing the simpletons of America by pretending to glorify Palin? Or are they all really idiots, for the most part sincerely taken with her? Do they really think she is some sort of towering intellect?

It is fascinating to me like watching a train wreck would be fascinating. I am just not sure which one I find more sad and frightening.
 
Dezaad said:
This liberal will back you up on that. It was stunningly dishonest to claim that Palin was advocating the use of nukes. That kind of dishonesty is the sort if thing that destroys real dialogue and problem solving.
Click to expand...
Very true. We all need to try to deal with the truth. Our opinions are OK, until we claim them as truth.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Fair enough. I admit I am not aware of the whole story.
Click to expand...

I cannot read her mind (and thank goodness I do not have to read her mind because that doesn't seem a very nice place IMHO), she is the only one who can do that.
 
SBu said:
I'm no fan of hers, but we all know what she meant. A country that has nukes and malicious intent can do essentially whatever they want, unless another country with good intent and nukes stands up to it. That isn't a suggestion to use nukes in war.
Click to expand...

The gun remark of the NRA is not meant IMHO to just be about deterrence but also the use of said weapons. And if you were only going to threaten to use nuclear weapons, that will be ineffective because Russia would not care about threats. If you want to have nuclear deterrence you also have to be willing to use it to stop Russia on the Crimea peninsular. And because of that, the comments of Palin made absolutely no sense IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom