Thread: Vp Debate!

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

regime changing pakistan (which is something Biden said last night)

Gonna have to raise the bull-shit flag on this one. He did not mention or infer a regime change in Pakistan.

of course he did. so did biden. Saying straight up that the governments will need to change. Changing governments is changing regimes. It's not like these people are going to resign because you ask them to. Or we to believe that's part of the plan when we invade pakistan.

Trigger, because I know that everyone, everywhere is pretty much the same, merely speaking different languages to order the same box of chicken mcnuggets is why I make my points as I do.

Saying the Iraq war is wrong, and that we should pull out is then forsaking these people, who just so happen to live in Iraq, to die. Because I guess they are just a little "less equal" than us american, and not worth fighting for. Same would be said for the south vietnamese. Or the afghanis. Or the darfurians.

I don't have to slap my passport on the table to know what I'm talking about. If that's card you have to pull to sound intelligent, then that's your problem. You have no arguments, and are completely on the attack of me, rather than the point. And the point is, the platforms and accusations you make about Iraq, about the war, about the debates are ridiculous, misinformed, and based on bumper sticker politics for stupid people.

I could care less if you are reading this in france, in china, or in downtown chicago. It doesn't make a difference where you are......except to people like you who think it matters.

It's like saying "Bill Clinton" was more experienced to be the president of the United States coming from a governorship than Sarah Palin for VP, because clinton went to an Ivy League school, and was a Rhode's Scholar.

elitist, exclusive, old hat snobbery. Get an argument.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

It is quite apparent from watching the entire debate on c-span (not the highlights on FOX with all the lame commentary from the professional, slanted, speculators)

typical.

what's stupid about saying something like that is, fox, just like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, ......every network out there ran the debate live. If you watched it on CSPAN, about the only thing you got to see was fuzzy as regular resolution, instead of HD CNN or local network.

But of course.....that doesn't stop the cheat shots, right?

I got in an argument with a french friend of mine at the party about network cable news and fairness. He thinks fox news is some right wing bullshit that shows 5X as much republican stuff as places like CNN and MSNBC. And to that, i say "well, duh. All that means is fox is 50/50, while other networks are showing 10% pro republican crap to balance out their love for Obama. CSPAN is great and all...but I get a little tired of the book club meetings and watching dead air on the senate floor because everyone is having lunch.

honestly.....do you really think fox news didn't run the debate live? What kind of clownity is that?

[quote=hawgballs ]

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

you aren't paying attention. asking "what is the bush doctrine" is a trick question because there is no such thing. Not because you, or I, or Palin doesn't know what it is. When I say "even I don't know" I'm saying it's not possible to know. You, of course.....somehow.....didn't read that, since you are dedicated into believing there IS a bush doctrine that palin is so stupidly unaware of.Read the date of this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun27.html they must not have wikipedia in Alaska http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine take away the existence of a bush doctrine....and her answer becomes correct.

You're blind, trigger. Caught up in the hype, and not the facts. What is the bush doctrine? Taxes? Unilateralism? Pre-emption? trade policies? Diplomatic policies? Do YOU have any examples, period?

getting facts from wikipedia is like getting news reports from blogs. Come on.

But hell....even on wikipedia

2 Components of the Bush Doctrine
2.1 Unilateralism
2.2 Attacking countries that harbor terrorists
2.3 Preventive strikes
2.4 Democratic regime change

Unilateralism, attacking terrorists, taking preventive measures against hostile countries, and establishing democratic governments in the aftermath........isn't that what Obama said we're going to do in Pakistan? When we have actionable intelligence about the location of terrorists, whether our allies or Pakistan agree, we're going to go in, and kill them. And if Pakistan doesn't like it, then we will help implement reforms in their country to give them a stable democracy, like he encourages doing in Afghanistan and Lebanon (biden brought that up last night).

The "bush doctrine"?

You mean that "duh" doctrine? What president is NOT going to kill terrorists, and hold terrorist nations accountable for harboring them? What president is going to wait around for the allies to answer their email, rather than act upon intellgence indicating where and when terrorists are going to do something? What president is NOT going to encourage democratic reforms, or implement democratic goverments in countries that fall due to our actions or from within (and still likely due to our actions)?

So like I said in a much easier and shorter fashion.....there is no such thing as the bush doctrine. There's how shit is going to get done, even by Obama and Biden's own words. Imagining that it can or will work any other way is saying you are against doing all of the things above.

of course, the lib's will come in here and say "well what if the intelligence is wrong" or "what if the country is trying to help us find the terrorists?". Well then those situations would fall OUTSIDE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINE. We don't invade countries that help us in the war on terror. We set up FBI offices, collaborate with their intelligence, and arrest people with their help. And the only way to truly know if intelligence is legit or not is to act on it. Does shit happen? Yes. So ensure shit doesn't happen....don't just give up because of the chance shit will happen.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Not quite BD nice try though. Saying that the governments need to change, is a far cry from invading a soveriegn country, decapitating it's leadership and installing a new one. Who exactly are you thinking should resign in the Pakistani government? Bro, you are full of it.

And don't repeat the blathering bullshit, that Obama said that he will invade Pakistan. A surgical strike, be it with SF or cruise missile or UAV, is not an invasion. What we did in Iraq was an invasion. And it is to be done with actionable intelligence. I remember you saying that we had actionable intel, before Iraq. Which is HORSESHIT!

Right....so your'e saying that becasue we do a "surgical strike" in pakistan, somehow the pakistani's will think that's ok, and get over it, right?

They're already shooting at our soldiers and helicopters on the border, right now. We've already killed some of their soldiers. Real deal pakistani ARMY. Not terrorists and civilians.

You need to wise up. You blow up shit, arrest people, kidnap terrorists, assasinate cells and terrorist leaders.....and that's you inside someone elses jurisdiction doign shit you dind't ask permissions, or were specifically told not to do. And that's an invasion. And that's against international law, unless you plan on declaring war next.

And then what's your plan when some of our soldiers are killed or worse CAPTURED by the pakistani government? Then what's your plan?

You can blow it off, because you know it's a dumb thing to say. Just shows an extreme bias of the truth.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

You mean that "duh" doctrine? What president is NOT going to kill terrorists, and hold terrorist nations accountable for harboring them? What president is going to wait around for the allies to answer their email, rather than act upon intellgence indicating where and when terrorists are going to do something? What president is NOT going to encourage democratic reforms, or implement democratic goverments in countries that fall due to our actions or from within (and still likely due to our actions)?

There were terrorists in Iraq? And WMD's?

go read some UN resolutions. I don't have to fight arguments like this. It's like debating as to whether bush won the 2000 presidential election....it's a waste of my time.

search here, or search somewhere, but trust me, you lose.

honestly hawgballs........you're way out of your league here...... I'm going to give you your chance to bow out. Or, we can have the "the intelligence was wrong" debate. And you can look dumb.

fuck it. we can do this fast.

hawgballs....first you say "the war was wrong, illegal, based on bad intelligence, and without the approval of the world community and authorization by the UN, and that Bush lied".

and then......I respond.