Charlie Gibson's Gaffe ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
ViRedd
New Member
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Yeah, usually when you use military force it's pretty much unilaterally. Though I'm sure the NAZIs and the Fascists would have appreciated it had we asked them if it was okay we were going to declare war on them before we did.
I'm sure North Korea would have appreciated it if we had asked them if it was okay for us to go to war against them before we did. Same with the North Vietnamese, and the Chinese.
Though in truth I think the Iraq war is being simplified.
1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait
1991 - US builds a coalition composed of mainly US soldiers but including Europeans and Middle Eastern forces to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
1991 - 2003 - After removing Iraq from Kuwait the US maintains a no fly zone over Iraq.
2002 - With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
2003 - President Bush moves to invade Iraq, Dispose of Saddam Hussein and emplace Democracy in Iraq.
2003 - Saddam Hussein dragged out of a hole.
2006 - Saddam executed after a trial.
2007 - Surge of military forces in Iraq lowers the fighting. Though a study by the RAND Corporation actually makes a point that part of the success seen by the Surge may be due to US Military forces supporting local tribal chieftains that have broke with Al Qa'ida in Iraq due to Al Qa'ida trying to use force against them.
We are there, we've already spent a lot of blood and treasure to get to the point where we are. The Iraqi Government is making progress towards its self-reliance, but until it is at a point where it can stand on its own we need to continue to train its military and police, and provide assistance to the government.
On the other hand, the War on Drugs is an extreme waste of money and one that we should stop fighting. People ought to be free to do whatever they want as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other people to do whatever they want.
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
You know, I find fascinating the dichotomy between the beleaguered black man and Women. Attack Obama and be prepared to be called a racist, a bigot, or of trying to keep down the black man. Attack a woman, though, and it's all good (right up there with gay bashing by my take on it). Sarah Palin, if nothing else, is getting a bit of the raw end of this American Deal. Will the men OR women of America at least face up to that?
I thought this was rather interesting, this take on how the woman on the playing field is being treated and addressed. What IS next...?
Feminist template obliterated - Opinion - USATODAY.comFeminist template obliterated
By Kathleen Parker
Every now and then, in walks a man or woman who turns the world inside out and upside down. Barack Obama was such a man. And now, Sarah Palin is such a woman.
Just as the first African American on a presidential ticket revealed to us how little we have come to terms with race in this country, the first woman in the Republican vice presidential slot has revealed how far we still have to go in our gender reckoning.
To put it plainly, Palin is seriously messing with our templates. We know what political women in the USA are supposed to look like and she's not it.
Palin fits no model we've ever seen, and we're not sure what to do with her. Equal parts Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman and Stands With A Fist with a little Barbarella thrown in Palin is a unique and unfamiliar brand.
She's what some might call "Trouble." And proud of it, too.
Reactions from all sides have fallen somewhere in the realm of hysteria. Republicans, 85% of whom view Palin favorably, are delirious that they the maligned party of traditional family values have produced the most credible, kick-caribou female candidate in U.S. history.
Democrats, only 24% of whom view Palin favorably, are dumbfounded sort of the way Republicans were when a new guy named Obama edged out a stable of Democratic veterans for the presidential nomination.
Who is this woman who could be only a heartbeat away from the presidency? Where did she come from? How could John McCain do such a thing?
Talk about the audacity of hope.
McCain can hardly wipe the grin off his face. He gambled and won Big Time. His biggest score has been among white women, who have abandoned the Obama camp and hauled their teepees over to the McCain reservation. Before the Republican convention, white women were leaning 50% for Obama to 42% for McCain, according to ABC News/Washington Post polling. Post-convention, the numbers have shifted to 53% for McCain and just 41% for Obama among white women.
That big shift suggests a new political timeline: BP and AP. Before Palin and After Palin.
In the relatively few days since McCain announced the Palin pick, little has been left unsaid about this youngish (44), attractive, athletic woman who wears librarian glasses and a retro hairdo.
Most Americans and, plausibly, most Martians by now know her narrative, as they say. Frontier huntress, "Sarah Barracuda" basketball star, erstwhile beauty queen, hockey mom, government reformer, mother of five, including a 5-month-old special needs child. And, oh yeah, her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant. Whatever. Life's a trip, right?
Palin is demonstrably pro-life, even to the extent of protecting those conceived through rape or incest. She's an evangelical Christian who speaks fluent God. She doesn't mind the idea of culling wolves with rifles from helicopters, though she hasn't shot any herself. She wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
And those are just the facts. A full accounting of the rumors and myths circulating about Palin would fill this page. Briefly, she didn't pose in a bikini with a rifle, doesn't want to teach creationism in school, isn't a secessionist and didn't ban books. Palin did ask the librarian in Wasilla (twice) how she would respond if the community wanted some books excluded from the library.
The larger truth is that we still don't know much about Palin other than her résumé points, which are fascinating if not necessarily convincing as to her qualifications for vice president. The Oct. 2 debate with Joe Biden should help voters more fairly assess whether she's up to the job.
Palin either will be the new Margaret Thatcher or the old Harriet Miers either a rock-'em-sock-'em stroke of Churchillian genius or a tail-dragging, head-banging Baghdad blunder.
What has become abundantly clear in the meantime is that we have reached a crossroads in our nation's gender trajectory. Always burbling beneath the surface of American life and politics, gender has erupted the past few days into a geyser of emotion and vitriol.
What kind of woman do we want in high office? What kind of woman is acceptable?
Feminists have always called the shots on this question. The quintessential woman was pro-choice, interchangeable with any man and her name was Hillary Rodham Clinton. Feminists necessarily have viewed Clinton's defeat as a sexist manifestation of patriarchal betrayal because, really, what other explanation could there be? Clinton was perfectly molded according to the feminist template. Clearly, she lost because she's a woman, disappointed women told themselves.
But the greatest insult was yet to come. Republicans those anti-woman, patriarchal Neanderthalian gun-clingers nominated a woman whom Democrats would call a "Stepford wife," except she'd beat them to a bloody pulp with a moose antler.
The irony is almost too on-the-nose to be enjoyable, but there is other cause for satisfaction. Even if Sarah Palin ultimately fails to prove herself worthy of second-in-command, her enthusiastic reception has proved that there are other kinds of women in the USA lots of them who have a different idea about what's best for womankind.
The sisterhood has been put on notice.
I thought this was rather interesting, this take on how the woman on the playing field is being treated and addressed. What IS next...?
natrone23
Well-Known Member
An Atheist running for president?
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Better YET, a tranny.
natrone23
Well-Known Member
IDK Who has got a better chance firstBetter YET, a tranny.
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Whoever has the best looks and plays the game just right. I thought you were gonna ask "which way tranny?" Women who become male kinda trip me out, turning your va-jay-jay inside out to make a penis. Wow, who thought of that? I like how it's not wasteful.
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
farthest thing from the truth in my part of the country.. nobody plays the race card in my area... nobody plays the sex card...
The only form I ever hear about race being invoved in this race is exactly what you said..
i keep hearing people say ...
"You know, I find fascinating the dichotomy between the beleaguered black man and Women. Attack Obama and be prepared to be called a racist, a bigot, or of trying to keep down the black man. "
but in actuality. I have never heard anybody say to somebody voting for McCain.. you;re just against the black man.. but I hearMcCain supporters playing that card everyday..
soooo who is actyally playing the race card?
you ever heard of a "double agent"..
or the best defense is a good offense?
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
I am speaking of what I've read here, on this forum, in other blogs, and on other websites and forums (this isn't the only place I can be found, after all). Often, these places are populated primarily by men, this site and a couple of others I use on a regular basis being extremely male-dominated (this situation exists in part because of what interests me, which isn't necessarily what interests most women). I have seen exactly that, ire and vitriol being directed at someone who isn't directly supporting Obama and then accusing that person of trying to "keep the black man down". It's a little annoying, too, that people automatically assume that, because one isn't voting for that one that they're automatically voting for the other.
There are more than two options, just as there is more than one color of the spectrum.
I am unique in that I can actually speak, from experience, to both sides of that dichotomy of sexism versus racism, and I can tell you, unequivocally, that breaking the racial wall is far easier than breaking the sexual wall.
Offense? Defense? Is it really so much the race card as it is the sex card? To me, that's the one that you just can't get past, even with surgery. I stay out of the sun, and suddenly I resemble "one of you", I mingle, I blend. I cannot so easily morph my gender, though, and see what results from both.
But, my main point was that many people like to say that one is (and I'm paraphrasing here) "against blacks in power" if one takes any issue at all with Obama's record and behavior (specifically, how he votes), and is thusly a racist for making any observations at all. This is not the case where I live, it's almost nothing BUT white people here, and I'm fairly certain that those who don't vote for my candidate will be voting Republican, as they tend to vote party lines and definitely vote in favor of anything that furthers a very specific Christian agenda. However, make similar observations about a woman, and do we find ANYONE saying that the only reason such observations (interpreted as attacks) are being made is because she is a woman? No, quite plainly, not at all. What I see is rather different in flavor and context. In my own estimation, there should be no differences in responses.
Why is that? These are the aspects of our culture that I like to examine. For instance, like our collective cognitive dissonance, when we scream and rail about how oil companies are making these huge profits without, for one second, taking responsibility for buying vehicles that get dismal gas mileage and then driving all over the U.S. in them. Um, guys, we made them what they are, we created the monster.
There are more than two options, just as there is more than one color of the spectrum.
I am unique in that I can actually speak, from experience, to both sides of that dichotomy of sexism versus racism, and I can tell you, unequivocally, that breaking the racial wall is far easier than breaking the sexual wall.
Offense? Defense? Is it really so much the race card as it is the sex card? To me, that's the one that you just can't get past, even with surgery. I stay out of the sun, and suddenly I resemble "one of you", I mingle, I blend. I cannot so easily morph my gender, though, and see what results from both.
But, my main point was that many people like to say that one is (and I'm paraphrasing here) "against blacks in power" if one takes any issue at all with Obama's record and behavior (specifically, how he votes), and is thusly a racist for making any observations at all. This is not the case where I live, it's almost nothing BUT white people here, and I'm fairly certain that those who don't vote for my candidate will be voting Republican, as they tend to vote party lines and definitely vote in favor of anything that furthers a very specific Christian agenda. However, make similar observations about a woman, and do we find ANYONE saying that the only reason such observations (interpreted as attacks) are being made is because she is a woman? No, quite plainly, not at all. What I see is rather different in flavor and context. In my own estimation, there should be no differences in responses.
Why is that? These are the aspects of our culture that I like to examine. For instance, like our collective cognitive dissonance, when we scream and rail about how oil companies are making these huge profits without, for one second, taking responsibility for buying vehicles that get dismal gas mileage and then driving all over the U.S. in them. Um, guys, we made them what they are, we created the monster.
medicineman
New Member
and I can tell you, unequivocally, that breaking the racial wall is far easier than breaking the sexual wall.
Uhhh maybe you'd feel different if you were black, unless of course you were a Black Woman, then you could yell Victim twice as much.
Uhhh maybe you'd feel different if you were black, unless of course you were a Black Woman, then you could yell Victim twice as much.
ViRedd
New Member
A high five for that response, Seamaiden.
In thinking it over, I've come to the conclusion that the best comment Palin could have given Charlie Gibson at the end of the "interview" would have been: "You know, Charlie ... I now understand why Joan of Arc hated faggots so."
Vi
PS: For those who knew before the interview what the "Bush Doctrine" was, sit still. For the rest of you, look up the term "faggot" in your dictionaries.
ViRedd
New Member
I hear ya. And you know what? Even though public restrooms have always been available to me, I'm beginning to experience a little of what racism feels like. Agism is no fun either.
Vi