@catfish198 Your premise is that your a Republican.Glad to hear your an American.Republicans have a different set of principles than Democrats.Palin and Clinton are miles of principles apart!And Mcain was much more qualified than the unqualified Obama.
"Charlie doesn't have 1/2 the integrity or intelligence of Sarah Palin."
And your evidence is? Lets be honest here, Palin might be very smart, but Krauthammer is a serious intellectual. Not a chance in hell that Palin is smarter than him.
Charles is right. Sarah Palin has a lot of positives, and has done a lot of good things in politics. But to start off the questioning with "if not Sarah Palin, then who?" is foolish. SP is just one contender among many, and all of the arguments CK provided argue that she won't be the Republican presidential nominee.
@IRHari The narrative in 1980 by main stream Republicans was that RR was not electable,time will tell about Sarah`s electabilty .although her unfavorables are high NOW,Charlie still is trying to shape public opinion.
Well Ronald Reagan wasnt on a reality TV show at the same time that he was gearing up for his presidential bid. This isnt to say that RR wasnt a showbiz man beacuse as we all know, he was a actor, radio figurehead, etc etc. But Reagan was also something of an intellectual, he stressed his knowledge of past historical events. He was inspired by reading the works of Thomas Aquinas and FE Hyak. Now Palin might be able to say something similar but she sure hasn't up to this point.
@TheBigLebbowskii Of course Sarah`s story is different,that makes her one of a kind thank you and RR was no intelectional of any kind,ask any Lamestream media person.I guess you like Aquinas and not so much C.S.Lewis.Its obvious we see what we want to see!
RR was no intellectual? Prove it. Where is your evidence. And of course, regarding CS Lewis, its good that Palin reads him beacuse he is a very prominant theologian. And no, Ive never actually read Aquinas, but I've read plenty of CS Lewis. The space trilogy, screwtape letters, and of course, as a kid I was brought up on Narnia and Lord of the Rings so there you go.
But this idea that being an intellectual is automatically bad is just idiotic.
@TheBigLebbowskii No its not bad,but intellectuals who think they are better because of it, and therefore more qualified for the Presidency is just idiotic.Adlai Stevenson anyone? Enjoy the debate.
Well this all partly hinges on our definition of an "Intellectual". For me, that just means a very well informed, that is to say unusually smart person. Now no one, least of all me, is gonna knock the notion that Smart people in government, at least recently, have thought way too highly of themselves and fucked a whole lot of things over. And for that matter, the greater your intelligence, the greater your capacity for evil, especially when your in government.
@catfish198 Now an intellectual doesn't have to be someone who goes to a fancy college or has a big league degree. So if your definition of an intellectual is a ivy league liberal than yeah, they suck. But the bottom line is, to be a good president, you have to be exceptionally intelligent, and Palin, at least up until now, has not fit that description. And lets remember, that the American founders were undeniably intellectuals of the highest order.
If I had to vote for a candidate, it would definitely be Gingrich. In matters of government, I find historical expertise to be a very big asset. He also has allot of legislative experience, which is invaluable, beacuse, lets face it, what we want is someone who can shove through a whole lot of trans-formative legislation which can drastically alter the current trajectory of our domestic affairs.
Bottom line is, I'm no Palin fan, but even someone who was uncommited or favorable to her should be able to realize that, for better or for worse, she isnt very much like RR. Her manner of speaking, for example, is a bit more folksy, a bit more reliant on anecdotes etc to connect what she is saying with our daily lives. Ronald Reagan on the other hand used a more grandiose historical manner of speaking where he appealed to age old religous emotions and economic idealogies.
If Palin gets the nomination I will hold my nose and vote for her, but mark my words, if the Republicans lose in 2012 with her as the nominee, it is going to be beacuse we nominated her.
You: Well lets think of reasons why Palin is a bad candidate. OH. Allright. She is a Shit Candidate. S H I T...Shit. That is such a great and logical argument which clearly demonstrates her faults and problems. Shit Candidate, man you are clever, I tell you what. Fuck it you should run for president, you would do great in debates.
"Well I believe..."
"Excuse me Mrs.Palin, let me interrupt by saying you are a shit candidate."
But seriously, its called greater of two evils. Sarah Palin or Obama, there's no choice there for me. Palins stupid but at least her idealogy isnt evil. Most people just say, "OMG WEIRDO CALLING OBAMA A SOCIALIST IS DUM", but you look at Obamas idealogical roots, the family which raised him, the teachers which taught him and the organizations which help him, and the pattern shows that he is a European Style social democrat with marxist inclinations.
Moderator: Well Mr.Watch123456, your opponent has frequently labeled your ideology as evil. How do you respond?
You: "Wow, she called my idealogy evil? Well let me first say that she is a shit candidate. Let me further respond that she is more retarded than I was giving her credit for LOLZ. I will also say that she never uses any type of logical argument but rather just regurgitates insults. Oh wait, that's me who does that! Apologies to my brain dead cunt opponent."
I'm assuming that you are a liberal of some sort or another. Do you not view conservatism, especially of the more radical type,as evil? I do not think people are necessarily evil if they believe something evil, and I dont think people who believe the right thing are saints. I view Obama's Socialist ideology as evil beacuse I view Socialism as evil. Its that simple, and I'm unafraid to say it. If you disagree you can either argue he is not a socialist or that socialism is not evil.
You asked me why I would vote for Palin over Obama. Because from my point of view, I view Obama's ideology as fundamentally flawed and irrational, IE Evil. That is my honest opinion and if you want to argue with that I suggest you attack my statements with logical arguments supported by fact. If you want me to explain why I think Socialism is evil, then I won't hesitate to say so, and if you want me to explain why I think Obamas a socialist I wont hesitate to do that neither.
"And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans." -Sarah Palin
Dont pull that out on me. This conversation started beacuse I said I hated Palin as a politician. I don't need to be told she's probably a hypocrite. Watch123456 decided however, to ask why I would still vote for Palin over Obama and I gave my reasons. That quote means nothing to me, other than, unsurprisingly, Palin used to be a far more moderate politician who was perfectly willing to ride the socialist tide. The truth is she never had any real conservative bona fides to begin with.
Only reason why I replied to you with that quote was because you said you'd vote for Palin, but at the same time you said Socialism is evil.
When Obama gives billions of dollars to banks and gives insurance companies millions of new customers, and gives defense contractors billions in no-bid contracts, would you still call that Socialism? Technically it's still 'redistribution of wealth'. The wealth is spraying up, not trickling down.
Like it or not, Palin would still govern from the Right, regardless of what she said there. She would be an incompetent leader, but she would at least make an attempt to govern using the same principals she ran on, and I like those principals better than Socialism. But really, when you think about it, its not like Palin was ever a particularly right wing persona, she has just adopted said policies to be in lockstep with the TeaParty, which is politically convenient for her.
But really, that says nothing. Palin is a politician. Changing her ideology to fit the political headwinds is typical of her breed.
---
The fact that Obama is giving money to corporations in no way contradicts the label socialist. After all, would you deny that the net result of much of the Tarp and Bailouts was that the government is even more intertwined with the large corporations? And of course, this phenomenon is a hallmark of Socialist governments everywhere. Just look at Red China.
Uh that intertwining was not a result of TARP/Bailouts. It's been happening way before that. How many of the last 4 Treasury Secretaries have had connections with Goldman Sachs? TARP/Bailouts was the reward of the intertwining between gov't and Wall Street.
No matter who is in power, Wall Street will be bailed out if they want to be.
You have to admit, it's a little ironic that in order to save Capitalism, W turned to Socialism.
"Uh that intertwining was not a result of TARP/Bailouts."
First off, why the Uh?
Second off, I never said that. The Tarp and Bailouts are completely in tow of a culture which has existed between Washington and Wall Street for years, I admit that. However, the Tarp and the Bailouts also included a shit load of government strings attached . The government owns more and more of Wall Street does it not?
"No matter who is in power, Wall Street will be bailed out if they want to be.
You have to admit, it's a little ironic that in order to save Capitalism, W turned to Socialism."
Yeah, I admit that. W was wrong. He was an idiot. . What the fuck is your point? I mean seriously, your telling me, its ironic bush did this, and its annoying Washington and Wall street are doing that. Are you arguing with me, IDK, all your doing is repeating tired shit which I already know!
Its just funny how you didn't respond to what I was saying, you just called me a retard for saying it. That's not an argument. I'm just trying to have an honest discussion here and your calling people retards. This is the internet boyo. No need to waste your time.
Bachmann/Palin in 2012!!
DillonDee1 1 year ago
I'm a republican and I agree, Palin is not qualified.
I'd vote for Hilary before I'd vote for Palin and that says alot....
MinmatarThrasher 1 year ago
@MinmatarThrasher Yes it says ,your not a very loyal one!
catfish198 1 year ago
@catfish198 I'm loyal to my country. Not a political party.
MinmatarThrasher 1 year ago
@catfish198 Your premise is that your a Republican.Glad to hear your an American.Republicans have a different set of principles than Democrats.Palin and Clinton are miles of principles apart!And Mcain was much more qualified than the unqualified Obama.
catfish198 1 year ago
Newt? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
DrLeroyGreen 1 year ago
Ha! He's right. By quiting office Palin cut herself off at the knees. Time to burp and move on.
the82spartans 1 year ago
Charlie doesn't have 1/2 the integrity or intelligence of Sarah Palin.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DillonDee1
"Charlie doesn't have 1/2 the integrity or intelligence of Sarah Palin."
And your evidence is? Lets be honest here, Palin might be very smart, but Krauthammer is a serious intellectual. Not a chance in hell that Palin is smarter than him.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
Charles is right. Sarah Palin has a lot of positives, and has done a lot of good things in politics. But to start off the questioning with "if not Sarah Palin, then who?" is foolish. SP is just one contender among many, and all of the arguments CK provided argue that she won't be the Republican presidential nominee.
DonTruman 1 year ago
Charlie`s trying to create public opinion,not reflect it.
catfish198 1 year ago 2
@catfish198
She has extremely high unfavorables as Krauthammer pointed out. That's not creating public opinion, that's stating fact.
IRHari 1 year ago
@IRHari The narrative in 1980 by main stream Republicans was that RR was not electable,time will tell about Sarah`s electabilty .although her unfavorables are high NOW,Charlie still is trying to shape public opinion.
catfish198 1 year ago
@catfish198
Well Ronald Reagan wasnt on a reality TV show at the same time that he was gearing up for his presidential bid. This isnt to say that RR wasnt a showbiz man beacuse as we all know, he was a actor, radio figurehead, etc etc. But Reagan was also something of an intellectual, he stressed his knowledge of past historical events. He was inspired by reading the works of Thomas Aquinas and FE Hyak. Now Palin might be able to say something similar but she sure hasn't up to this point.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@TheBigLebbowskii Of course Sarah`s story is different,that makes her one of a kind thank you and RR was no intelectional of any kind,ask any Lamestream media person.I guess you like Aquinas and not so much C.S.Lewis.Its obvious we see what we want to see!
catfish198 1 year ago
@catfish198
RR was no intellectual? Prove it. Where is your evidence. And of course, regarding CS Lewis, its good that Palin reads him beacuse he is a very prominant theologian. And no, Ive never actually read Aquinas, but I've read plenty of CS Lewis. The space trilogy, screwtape letters, and of course, as a kid I was brought up on Narnia and Lord of the Rings so there you go.
But this idea that being an intellectual is automatically bad is just idiotic.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@TheBigLebbowskii No its not bad,but intellectuals who think they are better because of it, and therefore more qualified for the Presidency is just idiotic.Adlai Stevenson anyone? Enjoy the debate.
catfish198 1 year ago
@catfish198
Well this all partly hinges on our definition of an "Intellectual". For me, that just means a very well informed, that is to say unusually smart person. Now no one, least of all me, is gonna knock the notion that Smart people in government, at least recently, have thought way too highly of themselves and fucked a whole lot of things over. And for that matter, the greater your intelligence, the greater your capacity for evil, especially when your in government.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@catfish198 Now an intellectual doesn't have to be someone who goes to a fancy college or has a big league degree. So if your definition of an intellectual is a ivy league liberal than yeah, they suck. But the bottom line is, to be a good president, you have to be exceptionally intelligent, and Palin, at least up until now, has not fit that description. And lets remember, that the American founders were undeniably intellectuals of the highest order.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
Comment removed
catfish198 1 year ago
@catfish198
If I had to vote for a candidate, it would definitely be Gingrich. In matters of government, I find historical expertise to be a very big asset. He also has allot of legislative experience, which is invaluable, beacuse, lets face it, what we want is someone who can shove through a whole lot of trans-formative legislation which can drastically alter the current trajectory of our domestic affairs.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
Bottom line is, I'm no Palin fan, but even someone who was uncommited or favorable to her should be able to realize that, for better or for worse, she isnt very much like RR. Her manner of speaking, for example, is a bit more folksy, a bit more reliant on anecdotes etc to connect what she is saying with our daily lives. Ronald Reagan on the other hand used a more grandiose historical manner of speaking where he appealed to age old religous emotions and economic idealogies.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
If Palin gets the nomination I will hold my nose and vote for her, but mark my words, if the Republicans lose in 2012 with her as the nominee, it is going to be beacuse we nominated her.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@TheBigLebbowskii Why would you vote for such a shit candidate?
watch123456 1 year ago
@watch123456 You got a point Obama`s president!
catfish198 1 year ago
@watch123456
"Why would you vote for such a shit candidate?"
You: Well lets think of reasons why Palin is a bad candidate. OH. Allright. She is a Shit Candidate. S H I T...Shit. That is such a great and logical argument which clearly demonstrates her faults and problems. Shit Candidate, man you are clever, I tell you what. Fuck it you should run for president, you would do great in debates.
"Well I believe..."
"Excuse me Mrs.Palin, let me interrupt by saying you are a shit candidate."
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
But seriously, its called greater of two evils. Sarah Palin or Obama, there's no choice there for me. Palins stupid but at least her idealogy isnt evil. Most people just say, "OMG WEIRDO CALLING OBAMA A SOCIALIST IS DUM", but you look at Obamas idealogical roots, the family which raised him, the teachers which taught him and the organizations which help him, and the pattern shows that he is a European Style social democrat with marxist inclinations.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@TheBigLebbowskii Obama's ideology is evil??? hahaha you are more retarded than i was giving you credit for.
watch123456 1 year ago
Heres you in a debate.
Moderator: Well Mr.Watch123456, your opponent has frequently labeled your ideology as evil. How do you respond?
You: "Wow, she called my idealogy evil? Well let me first say that she is a shit candidate. Let me further respond that she is more retarded than I was giving her credit for LOLZ. I will also say that she never uses any type of logical argument but rather just regurgitates insults. Oh wait, that's me who does that! Apologies to my brain dead cunt opponent."
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@TheBigLebbowskii why would i respond to such a ludicrous statement. Why not just say Obama eats babies?
I would reply to you in the same way. You are retarded.
watch123456 1 year ago
@watch123456
I'm assuming that you are a liberal of some sort or another. Do you not view conservatism, especially of the more radical type,as evil? I do not think people are necessarily evil if they believe something evil, and I dont think people who believe the right thing are saints. I view Obama's Socialist ideology as evil beacuse I view Socialism as evil. Its that simple, and I'm unafraid to say it. If you disagree you can either argue he is not a socialist or that socialism is not evil.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
You asked me why I would vote for Palin over Obama. Because from my point of view, I view Obama's ideology as fundamentally flawed and irrational, IE Evil. That is my honest opinion and if you want to argue with that I suggest you attack my statements with logical arguments supported by fact. If you want me to explain why I think Socialism is evil, then I won't hesitate to say so, and if you want me to explain why I think Obamas a socialist I wont hesitate to do that neither.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@TheBigLebbowskii
"And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans." -Sarah Palin
IRHari 1 year ago
@IRHari
Dont pull that out on me. This conversation started beacuse I said I hated Palin as a politician. I don't need to be told she's probably a hypocrite. Watch123456 decided however, to ask why I would still vote for Palin over Obama and I gave my reasons. That quote means nothing to me, other than, unsurprisingly, Palin used to be a far more moderate politician who was perfectly willing to ride the socialist tide. The truth is she never had any real conservative bona fides to begin with.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@TheBigLebbowskii
Only reason why I replied to you with that quote was because you said you'd vote for Palin, but at the same time you said Socialism is evil.
When Obama gives billions of dollars to banks and gives insurance companies millions of new customers, and gives defense contractors billions in no-bid contracts, would you still call that Socialism? Technically it's still 'redistribution of wealth'. The wealth is spraying up, not trickling down.
IRHari 1 year ago
@IRHari
Like it or not, Palin would still govern from the Right, regardless of what she said there. She would be an incompetent leader, but she would at least make an attempt to govern using the same principals she ran on, and I like those principals better than Socialism. But really, when you think about it, its not like Palin was ever a particularly right wing persona, she has just adopted said policies to be in lockstep with the TeaParty, which is politically convenient for her.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
But really, that says nothing. Palin is a politician. Changing her ideology to fit the political headwinds is typical of her breed.
---
The fact that Obama is giving money to corporations in no way contradicts the label socialist. After all, would you deny that the net result of much of the Tarp and Bailouts was that the government is even more intertwined with the large corporations? And of course, this phenomenon is a hallmark of Socialist governments everywhere. Just look at Red China.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@TheBigLebbowskii
Uh that intertwining was not a result of TARP/Bailouts. It's been happening way before that. How many of the last 4 Treasury Secretaries have had connections with Goldman Sachs? TARP/Bailouts was the reward of the intertwining between gov't and Wall Street.
No matter who is in power, Wall Street will be bailed out if they want to be.
You have to admit, it's a little ironic that in order to save Capitalism, W turned to Socialism.
IRHari 1 year ago
@IRHari
"Uh that intertwining was not a result of TARP/Bailouts."
First off, why the Uh?
Second off, I never said that. The Tarp and Bailouts are completely in tow of a culture which has existed between Washington and Wall Street for years, I admit that. However, the Tarp and the Bailouts also included a shit load of government strings attached . The government owns more and more of Wall Street does it not?
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
@IRHari
"No matter who is in power, Wall Street will be bailed out if they want to be.
You have to admit, it's a little ironic that in order to save Capitalism, W turned to Socialism."
Yeah, I admit that. W was wrong. He was an idiot. . What the fuck is your point? I mean seriously, your telling me, its ironic bush did this, and its annoying Washington and Wall street are doing that. Are you arguing with me, IDK, all your doing is repeating tired shit which I already know!
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
Its just funny how you didn't respond to what I was saying, you just called me a retard for saying it. That's not an argument. I'm just trying to have an honest discussion here and your calling people retards. This is the internet boyo. No need to waste your time.
TheBigLebbowskii 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheBigLebbowskii But you will be principled!
catfish198 1 year ago
@catfish198
In this case Kraut isn't being an advocate, he's being analyzing what he sees.
IRHari 1 year ago
@IRHari Ahh we all see somethind different!
catfish198 1 year ago