DescentBB

Bet51987 wrote:BTW, her plan was on her other hand. It was blank.

Bee

ROFL! Good one Bee!

So did either of you actually see if anything was written on Palins hand? If so what was it? For all you know one of her kids wrote on it, \"Good luck Mom\". Of course if you don't have kids you wouldn't understand things like that.

Bettina wrote:BTW, her plan was on her other hand. It was blank.

Bettina wins!

Smaller government, reduced federal spending, term limits, hmmm sounds like a plan to me.

.

Bet51987 wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:Smaller government, reduced federal spending, term limits, hmmm sounds like a plan to me.

She got that from the standard handbook of what to say when you don't have a plan

Bee

That's a VERY contradictory statement you just made. Oxymoron comes to mind. If there's a handbook, there must be a plan. Too bad MOST politicians can't stick to the handbook/plan.

So a political speaker jots down some talking points on her hand before giving a speech ... this is different from the politicians you support how?

OH wait...I know how it's different!

You voted for a guy who spends hundreds of thousands to maintain and staff a multiple teleprompter setup when he gives a talk to a frikken kindergarten class of less than 20 students and you want to laugh at Palin for writing a few points on her palm?!?!

Let's turn that around, \"Larger government, more federal spending, career politicians\" Sounds like a \"progressive\" plot to me. Yet still I'm SURE there is a \"handbook\" for that as well, which indeed makes it a \"plan.\"

You know now I'm going to speak on hand about this thread's topic.

It might surprise some people here on this board, but, I'm thinking it might be just a little naive to underestimate Mrs. Palin.

She speaks to more people than ALL of the so-called intellectuals that inhabit the inside of the beltway.

NAH its just that Bee and TC are feeling threatened by a woman smarter than they are, and with more courage than they have

.

So lets see if I understand. Obama when he was running for Pres., all I heard from him about policy was \"change you could believe in\". Did he expound on what he was going to do when he got elected? Well kinda.

I heard how he was going to close gitmo but he never said where he was going to stick the prisoners. I heard lame statements like he would send troops into Pakistan. I also heard how he was going to make the world love us by being more humble and respectful.
Great policy eh? He never said what he would do about the sinking economy. He never said if he would raise or lower the taxation rate. In short Obama never said much of anything and he was running for President. Palin on the other hand is NOT running fore President but the ladies here seem to think she needs to say what her plan would be now. Why?

Now lets look at what the real airhead has accomplished.

Forced a tarp program thru with the assurances if tarp passed unemployment would not go above 8%. Failed.

Told us how he would get health care passed and even tho the Dems controlled everything, HC did not get passed. Failed

Tried to find a place to move the gitmo prisoners to a US mainland jail but found out NIMBY is alive and well. Failed

Told everyone that he would try terrorist in a court of law so the world would see we are a just country and then found out the high cost and inconvenience the trials would entail. Now his advisers are saying maybe military tribunals may indeed be the best way.
Fail

Where's the respect? After making ass kissing speeches to the middle east and the world, Iran is giving us the finger and Chavez still hates us.
Fail

Obama led a hate program against bank and wall street executives because of their obscene bonus's. Now he thinks the obscene bonus pay-outs are really OK. Fail

Yet the DBB ladies think somehow Palin would be a bad choice for President. Watching their hero in action, I for one think Palin would run circles around the Bat-Boy failure we have in office right now.

Bet51987 wrote:..

When you guys think of Sarah Palin, think nuclear codes instead of how she looks.

Bee

No need to, by the time Obama is done all those codes will be in the Russians hands anyway...

Lefty handbook:

When all else fails, use the ole “Nuclear Armageddon Scare”.

Spidey wrote:Lefty handbook:

When all else fails, use the ole “Nuclear Armageddon Scare”.

sort of like that "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" trick, huh?

LOL

Bettina wrote:When you guys think of Sarah Palin, think nuclear codes instead of how she looks.

I think you're buying into liberal propaganda. The only reason I'd be worried about someone like Palin being in a position of such authority would be because she is a woman, and may not have the strength of will to resist influence and stick to her guns in the really tough situations with a lot at stake. She strikes me as being a person of conviction, and maybe passion, but not trigger-happy. You're just freaking out because she's a Christian.

President Harry S. Truman a Democrat and the only president to authorize dropping of nuclear weapons on to another country. President John F. Kennedy the second president that almost flung us into a nuclear war what was he, Oh that is right another Democratic I'm more worried about Democrats having nuclear codes.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: The only reason I'd be worried about someone like Palin being in a position of such authority would be because she is a woman, and may not have the strength of will to resist influence and stick to her guns in the really tough situations with a lot at stake.

So you are admitting that you think women are inferior to men with regard to strength of will? PLEASE clarify if I'm misunderstanding you here.

So what if he is…you gonna smack his wrist?

Spidey wrote:So what if he is…you gonna smack his wrist?

Metaphorically.

Good Luck

tunnelcat wrote:
She even had to consult crib notes during and after her speech, written on the palm of her hand no less, to remind herself of a couple of SIMPLE talking points.

You mean kinda like Dianne Feinstein did back during a debate where notes were specifically forbidden?:

"Veteran California political scribes recalled, however, that now-senior Senator Dianne Feinstein pulled the same stunt during a crucial debate when she unsuccessfully ran for governor against Pete Wilson. Back in October 1990, Feinstein and Wilson had their one-and-only debate of the campaign; nervous before the statewide televised event, DiFi scrawled three words — “growth, education, choice” on her palm in blue marker, to remind her of the policy themes she wanted to sound."

http://www.independent.com/news/2010/fe ... feinstein/

cmon woody, if you keep bringing up other instances of Politicians doing the same things your going to confuse them, and then they won't know who to hate next

Everything I wanted to say, Will and woodchip already did. I'm personally trying to shepherd in the Tea Party movement in my own town, and it's cathcing on. You're gunna hear things about crazies and conspiracy theorists and extremists, but that's the most horse**** propaganda I've ever heard.

I'm calling it now, I gotta remember this thread or record it, it's gunna be Palin/Brown winning in 2012.

Kilarin wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: The only reason I'd be worried about someone like Palin being in a position of such authority would be because she is a woman, and may not have the strength of will to resist influence and stick to her guns in the really tough situations with a lot at stake.

So you are admitting that you think women are inferior to men with regard to strength of will? PLEASE clarify if I'm misunderstanding you here.

No. I'm speaking from experience. Women are more emotional than men, and when a woman gets flustered, based on what I've seen, it has a tendancy to short-circuit their capacity for sound, logical thinking. But I said "may not have the strength of will".

The fact is that men are better suited for positions of authority, and in fact they were designed for it. Your Bible even states that women are the "weaker vessel", unless you've torn that part out.

Two words: Margret Thatcher

Point taken, and I'm not saying someone like Palin couldn't make a good President. I could be wrong, but while her heart seems to be in the right place, on a scale of 0 to Margaret Thatcher I would give Palin a 6.

A couple of Margaret Thatcher clips I came across:
Margaret Thatcher BBC Panorama 1987 Pt 1
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
Retrobites: Margaret Thatcher (1983) (awesome)

I like her.

no way.
stick to your guns man.

We live in an imperfect world, and where there are no men to do what needs to be done, it is not unheard of for a women to step in and do it, even though strictly speaking that is not their place. My gut feeling is that Palin is not the answer to our present situation, but I don't think it is outside of the realm of possibility.

of course not, but if you give them any footroom they take a mile and spit you out of their mouths like the worst thing they ever tasted in their lives.

Now now Behemoth, don't judge all females by what you see in Bee

Margaret Thatcher BBC Panorama 1987 Pt 3

You've got the see this one. Particularly the conclusion. What an amazing woman.

The way people (consistently) misuse and misconstrue the things that I say is their own problem. Although I hope I leave them less and less room for it as time goes on. The feminist movement hurts women as much as it tries to dominate men by pulling them out of their position of authority authored by God, and anyone who sidles up to it has been taken advantage of by means of their own cowardliness and foolishness (or maybe \"blindness\" would be a more accurate term).

“The way people (consistently) misuse and misconstrue the things that I say is their own problem.”


I would have 100 times more respect for you if every one of your arguments didn’t come out of a book.

You seem like a pretty smart guy, but if someone has dismissed the book, then they want to have the discussion with “you”.

woodchip wrote:Now now Behemoth, don't judge all females by what you see in Bee

Look, life is complicated. None of you guys claim to know what is right or what is true (unless we are to believe that there is no such thing, which is absolutely absurd). I choose to stand on the word of God as a defense against the numerous and tricky misconceptions, deceptions, and outright lies masquerading as truth that prey on people's ignorance and desires. You--all of you--are overconfident in your ability to figure things out--to arrive at the truth. Just have a look around. I've said before that truth is not the default in this world. I don't know everything, but I have seen ample evidence that the scriptures are the word of God, and the key to accurately interpreting the meaning and the cause of events in our lives and in the world around us. God has given us everything we need, and there is plenty of proof to be had, but people have been in rebellion against God since Adam and Eve, and on top of that there are spiritual authorities that influence people's lives that are actively seeking to subvert the truth.

You want to just talk to \"me\"? Talk about favorite colors, or Descent ships. Talk about web-design or bushcraft/camping. But to talking about things that are rooted in moral issues and to ask me to depart from my moral base is to invite confusion and compromise.

No, you missed the point…you always seem to miss the point. I’m not asking you to give up your “moral base” when I asked that question on the other board…you gave me God’s answer, I didn’t ask for God’s answer, if I wanted that I could look it up myself.

The point was to get “your” perspective. (although the question was directed at the OP)

I’ll paraphrase the question again…

Why does God allow such misery on this planet, yet cater to one of flip’s minor wishes?

It’s an honest question, not a “trick” like Behe seems to think everyone is out to do. And I already know God’s answer, so if you can’t add something more…don’t answer questions that aren’t directed at you.

Actually Spidey I think it's you that is missing the point.

If you ask about God, it is only right that we give His answer, not our \"opinion\" because that isn't a real answer, it's speculation; even if it's what we think of God's word.

Bottom line is that your question is sarcastically pernicious and shouldn't be addressed.

Truth is truth. Anything else is silly.

So fine…truth is truth, then let me derive my own conclusions.

God is trivial.

I like how you find the absurdity in my question, but fail to find the absurdity in the condition that lets someone even ask it.

...................

“Bottom line is that your question is sarcastically pernicious and shouldn't be addressed.”

The inability to question the “truth” is a major reason I left Christianity.

.................

Oh, and Duper…forget all the “we and ours” I was asking Thorne, so after two of you guys can agree on something, you can say “we”.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The way people (consistently) misuse and misconstrue the things that I say is their own problem.

Please note, I specifically asked you for clarification because I did NOT want to misunderstand what you were saying.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Your Bible even states that women are the "weaker vessel", unless you've torn that part out.

Women have less upper body strength then men. Try giving birth to a child and then tell me that women are weaker in will then men.

If Adam had been the one that had to give birth, humanity would have died out with Cain. Adam would have made certain that Able was never conceived. No way he would have gone through that TWICE.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The fact is that men are better suited for positions of authority, and in fact they were designed for it.

The exact same argument used to be made (and sometimes still is) when discussing why white people should rule over blacks. They even used (misused) the Bible to back the argument up.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: I'm speaking from experience. Women are more emotional than men, and when a woman gets flustered, based on what I've seen, it has a tendancy to short-circuit their capacity for sound, logical thinking.

You are describing a lot of men I know. Let them get the least bit angry or upset, and it becomes all emotion, no thought. Actually, men are quite famous for this, it's used as an excuse for domestic violence all the time. I understand why some people seem to forget this when trying to decide which sex is more "emotional".

The fact is that BOTH sexes are equally vulnerable to this problem. And some of the calmest most rational people I have known have possessed two X chromosomes. Perhaps it's time to quit trying to pigeon hole people by some external and useless category such as gender, and to actually judge them by who they are and what they do. I have a dream...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:None of you guys claim to know what is right or what is true

Second time someone has said this in the last week or so. There are actually quite a few Christians on this forum, so are you excluding them from "you guys" or do you just feel that none of the rest of them have the truth?

Oh, and just as an aside, There ARE plenty of folks who are NOT Christian who also claim to know what is right and true. Some of them on these forums.

No, I'm NOT trying to misconstrue what you are saying, but what you are saying is confusing to me, so I'm asking for clarification.

.