• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Palin "going rogue"

He did get a spike at the start of the invasion, but it wasn't his peak. A whole lot of the country and the legislature were gung ho for the invasion at the time. The Admin couldn't've done it w/o the support from many quarters.

I am amazed at Bush's current negative ratings. I didn't realize it had gotten so high.

Buyer's remorse hits hard.
I think it's important to remember and to never forget that Bush et al manipulated the news we were told and scared America into believing there was a threat that in TRUTH never existed...never forget:

But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
 
From time to time Bush had some of the highest approval ratings for PotUSAs. It takes more than GOP to give him those sorts of ratings.

The only time bush had "some of the highest" approval rating was after 9/11. The country was in shock and Bush lied about getting the people who were involved.

Historical Bush Approval Ratings
 
You know damn well Bush never said that Saddam was involved with 9/11. And Cheney told us that on Meet the Press just weeks after 9/11.

What else are you wrong about?

Maybe people got the idea that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda from all the newspaper stories during the Clinton years talking about Bin Laden getting shelter from Saddam.

But it didn't come from Bush.
Maybe. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to question what someone else might be wrong about...

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq | csmonitor.com
 
Yeah, right..........Can you give me a link to that abuse of power? If you are talking about trooper gate Palin has been exonerated of any guilt in that situation...........Nice try though......:roll:

She was found guilty of ethics violations. I love how you right-wingers can spin this into she was completely vindictated.:doh
 
She was found guilty of ethics violations. I love how you right-wingers can spin this into she was completely vindictated.:doh

Well, she DID put out her own report exonerating herself. :bs
 
The only time bush had "some of the highest" approval rating was after 9/11. The country was in shock and Bush lied about getting the people who were involved.

Historical Bush Approval Ratings

It was one thing when the Supreme Court stole the election for him. But, how the hell did this kluck finagle it a second time?!?!?! We all must've been very bad in a previous life. :mrgreen:
 
It was one thing when the Supreme Court stole the election for him. But, how the hell did this kluck finagle it a second time?!?!?! We all must've been very bad in a previous life. :mrgreen:

The second time was due to fear. Anyone remember the terrorist warning colors? That is what did it. Fear mongering, and it worked for some.
 
The second time was due to fear. Anyone remember the terrorist warning colors? That is what did it. Fear mongering, and it worked for some.

Yep, right out of the Repubs handbook: Politics 101.
 
Let me break up this liberal love fest.........I love it how you lefties use CNN the Clinton News network as your link......Why don't you use use moveon.org.....They have the same creditability............

It never ceases to amaze me to see how much you lefties are so afraid of Governor Palin with good reason......She is drawing huge enthusiastic crowds at all her rallys...........Its amazing to see and it will pay off on 4 November with the election of McCain as president.............

Stop it, NP. No one is afraid of Palin. She is one of the reasons that Obama will, probably, be the next President. After her initial "bump" she has caused all sorts of problems for the McCain ticket. The more I watch and listen, the more I am reminded of Geraldine Ferraro in '84. Palin's impact has been similar. So has been her baggage.

I do, however, think it was unprofessional for the McCain aids to go public. She is part of their team, and publicly, they should show no dissention. Doing so, hurts the team and campaign, further. The should be chastized for this.
 
I do, however, think it was unprofessional for the McCain aids to go public. She is part of their team, and publicly, they should show no dissention. Doing so, hurts the team and campaign, further. The should be chastized for this.
They know this. The only reason I can think of is that they are not concerned about winning anymore - they have written it off. They're looking at something else.
 
Originally Posted by sazerac
You know damn well Bush never said that Saddam was involved with 9/11. And Cheney told us that on Meet the Press just weeks after 9/11.

What else are you wrong about?

Maybe people got the idea that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda from all the newspaper stories during the Clinton years talking about Bin Laden getting shelter from Saddam.

But it didn't come from Bush.

Certainly you are not suggesting that the Bush Administration did not flat out state that Iraq/Saddam were directly involved with Al Quada, and that they hoped that the US public believed them and that through indirect implications hope that the public made assumptions based off of their statements that Iraq/Saddam were involved with terrorism on a large scale and thusly 911?

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002)

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat


I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002)

President Condemns Attack in Bali


"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002)

Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
 
Really? :roll:

The idea originated with him and Cheney. Do you really think Cheney said that without dubya's ok?

Here's a good description of how it unfolded: washingtonpost.com: Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

Want some fun reading just what big ears' intentions really were? Try this: lies.com » Evidence of Bush’s Early Decision to Invade Iraq

Not enough for ya? Here: Tompaine.com - Print Page

There are plenty more. This was Bush and Cheney's private war!!! I can't wait for all the exposes to come out after he's out of "our house"! If we're lucky charges will be brought against the two of them. Maybe Rummy too!

They are the true traitors to our country! :blastem::blastem::blastem::blastem:

This is your proof that Bush told us Saddam was involved in 9/11?

What is wrong with you?
 
This is your proof that Bush told us Saddam was involved in 9/11?

What is wrong with you?

I assume that you are getting ready to respond to me now.. ..
 
It's insider comments like this that keep $150k wardrobes from being effective.

Actually, it's the crazy broad they put in the wardrobes that keep them from being effective.
 
Are you purposely lying or are you simply wrong and uninformed?

Follow this link to see Bush's approval rating from day 1 forward:

USATODAY.com - feature

His highest ratings were right after 9-11 NOT after he idiotically started a war that was/is worthless and has hurt America far, far more than it ever could have helped.

Can you admit when you're wrong?
9/11 was NOT the only time that Bush had high apprpval ratings as was stated. They were also high after the successful invasion of Iraq. In May, 2003, support for the war was 79%.

Why are you trying to deceive us?
 
This is how HawkeyMoms Roll! You BetCha! *Winks*
 
Let me break up this liberal love fest.........I love it how you lefties use CNN the Clinton News network as your link......Why don't you use use moveon.org.....They have the same creditability............

It never ceases to amaze me to see how much you lefties are so afraid of Governor Palin with good reason......She is drawing huge enthusiastic crowds at all her rallys...........Its amazing to see and it will pay off on 4 November with the election of McCain as president.............


Palin is not a threat-just one big ass joke:roll:
 
9/11 was NOT the only time that Bush had high apprpval ratings as was stated. They were also high after the successful invasion of Iraq. In May, 2003, support for the war was 79%.

Why are you trying to deceive us?

Is this some kind of crazy smoke screen to cover your own deception?

from post #39
sazerac said:
The successful invasion of Iraq caused his highest ratings.

Family guy proved this incorrect, and then you change your story from highest to highand accuse him of deception? You are a good little hack, you got the Rep. modus operandi nailed to a T.. well done!
 
Palin "going rogue".

Would that be part of the $2400 she spent on make-up?
Oh...wait, that's rouge.:doh
 
Palin "going rogue".

Would that be part of the $2400 she spent on make-up?
Oh...wait, that's rouge.:doh

$2400 on makeup isn't much, actually; I'd venture to guess that all three of the male candidates spend more than that on it, as do- probably- Cindy Mccain and possibly (probably) Michelle Obama.
That fancy designer makeup is very expensive.
Even when I was making a lot of money, I couldn't afford it.
If I wanted to, though, I could easily go down to the mall and spend $2400 in one pop on designer and custom-blended cosmetic and toiletry items.
A bottle of perfume can cost that much.
There's one perfume- Imperial Majesty, by Clive Christian- distributed by Harrod's in London and Bergdorf Goodman in New York- that costs $2,200 per ounce. Caron's Poivre is $2,000 for a 2-ounce bottle; Baccarat's Les Larmes Sacrées de Thebes is $1,750 for a tiny quarter-ounce bottle... etc.
And even if you left out fragrance altogether, it would be easy enough to blow $2,400 on cosmetics in one wild afternoon extravaganza at a department store makeup counter. I could spend that much merely on designer hair products. Or moisturizers.

Maybe you left out a zero somewhere in that cosmetic bill- could it be $24,000? :confused:
 
$2400 on makeup isn't much, actually; I'd venture to guess that all three of the male candidates spend more than that on it, as do- probably- Cindy Mccain and possibly (probably) Michelle Obama.
That fancy designer makeup is very expensive.
Even when I was making a lot of money, I couldn't afford it.
If I wanted to, though, I could easily go down to the mall and spend $2400 in one pop on designer and custom-blended cosmetic and toiletry items.
A bottle of perfume can cost that much.
There's one perfume- Imperial Majesty, by Clive Christian- distributed by Harrod's in London and Bergdorf Goodman in New York- that costs $2,200 per ounce. Caron's Poivre is $2,000 for a 2-ounce bottle; Baccarat's Les Larmes Sacrées de Thebes is $1,750 for a tiny quarter-ounce bottle... etc.
And even if you left out fragrance altogether, it would be easy enough to blow $2,400 on cosmetics in one wild afternoon extravaganza at a department store makeup counter. I could spend that much merely on designer hair products. Or moisturizers.

Maybe you left out a zero somewhere in that cosmetic bill- could it be $24,000? :confused:

The point you are missing is that her claim is that she's just an average joe sixpack, a hawkey mawm, with small town values... ad nauseum. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone else fitting such a description who would/could spend $2400 in 2.5 months on makeup.
 
$2400 on makeup isn't much, actually; I'd venture to guess that all three of the male candidates spend more than that on it, as do- probably- Cindy Mccain and possibly (probably) Michelle Obama.
That fancy designer makeup is very expensive.
Even when I was making a lot of money, I couldn't afford it.
If I wanted to, though, I could easily go down to the mall and spend $2400 in one pop on designer and custom-blended cosmetic and toiletry items.
A bottle of perfume can cost that much.
There's one perfume- Imperial Majesty, by Clive Christian- distributed by Harrod's in London and Bergdorf Goodman in New York- that costs $2,200 per ounce. Caron's Poivre is $2,000 for a 2-ounce bottle; Baccarat's Les Larmes Sacrées de Thebes is $1,750 for a tiny quarter-ounce bottle... etc.
And even if you left out fragrance altogether, it would be easy enough to blow $2,400 on cosmetics in one wild afternoon extravaganza at a department store makeup counter. I could spend that much merely on designer hair products. Or moisturizers.

Maybe you left out a zero somewhere in that cosmetic bill- could it be $24,000? :confused:

Isn't her makeup artist the highest paid campaign worker this month?
 
In one way or another Palin is probably a lucky woman, lets see who wins the elections to check how her current nominatuion will help her in the future.

Hillary Clintom started her political career since young thanks to the popularity and political steps gioven by her husband Bill. It tooks to Hillary several years to reach a position which allowed her to try to become the president of US.

Palin, on the other hand, started with careers not related with politics and she was expected to be a governor of a few thousands of people only as her higher success in life. Suddenly McCain pointed his finger at her as his VP and Palin saw the opportunity to try more than just running for a VP, she now is working for herself and with te expectation that McCain may not last long and she might try to run for president four years from now.

As McCain said it properly very recently, Us is the country of "opportunities" and Palin is trying to exploit hers to the maximum.

The only problem is that the current elections are focused to elect leaders who will work for the people but Palin doesn't think so, she is using the people to work for her.

If McCain loses she wil be the first one to be blamed, and if McCain wins and by chance she reaches the presidency later one, the people who contributed for this to happen will blame to themselves because she already showed her abuse of power and the more power she gets the more dangerous she will become.

The word "rogue" is not describing properly the current status of Palin in reference with the Republican party, I think that the word "isolated" works better.
 
The only thing Palin has accomplished politically in her short career is to take advantage of a small populations anger at their corrupt republican party in Alaska. Nothing more.

She got a bachelors degree in communications-journalism. Not political science or law or anything even remotely related to politics. She was a sports caster so she speaks well when reading a teleprompter or when making well rehearsed attacks.

Even her gubernatorial opponent notes her lack of political knowledge.

Halcro told the Los Angeles Times, "When you try to prove she doesn't know anything, you lose, because audiences are enraptured by her. ...And her biting comments give you a sense of how competitive she is. Anybody who doesn't take her seriously does so at their peril."

Halcro wrote a piece for the Christian Science Monitor in which he noted her knack for deflecting questions, saying, "Joe Biden will have his hands full. ... She's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the non-answer, the glittering generality. Against such charms, there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do."

I'll be surprised if she wins a second term in Alaska.
 
Back
Top Bottom