Tags for this video have been changed from 'maher, rushdie, garafelo, fund, palin' to 'maher, rushdie, garofalo, fund, palin' - edited by blahpook

Garofalo makes a good point early on - 'let's compare her to the last vagina to be that prominent on the political scene a bajillion years ago...'

Also, I'm glad Rushie made the point I've been thinking for so long. How can anyone in the incumbent party run on a campaign of change?!

By the way, Gibson did stop in the middle of his disbelief to explain what the Bush doctrine was; Palin was just too busy trying to remember her catchphrases to notice...

Get this to the front page, STAT!

>> ^blahpook:
Also, I'm glad Rushie made the point I've been thinking for so long. How can anyone in the incumbent party run on a campaign of change?!

Totally agree. That's something that the Obama campaign should focus on as the election draws near.

In the very same breath, the GOP is saying that Bush has done a great job, but they're not going to be anything like him anyway.

Mr. Fund is a more polished version of O'Reilly and Limbaugh, spreading rightwing propaganda to the upper-classes instead of the hoi polloi.

He's quick to spread the voter fraud myth while completely ignoring the much more prominent instances of election fraud because the GOP has turned election fraud into a sinister art form.

Fund's right that attacking Palin directly - even if rationally it seems warranted - might lose the election.

She's seen as a charismatic underdog who's outside of dishonest Washington politics. My prediction is that that will be enough to give her a victory over Biden's experience but lack of charisma or uniqueness in the upcoming VP debates.

Democrats need to keep their attacks focused on McCain (Obama has been very good about this in everything I've seen), and give Biden a compelling story or thesis that makes him emotionally interesting to the public.

^You are right, she is using the Bush 2000 routine.

All this talk about Palin over the last week has made one thing crystal clear to me: Obama made a monumental mistake in choosing Biden over Hilary. I've hardly seen or heard anything of Biden in the last week, but I can easily imagine Hilary getting lots of exposure by going after Palin's inadequacy.

Did you say the Burgertron 2000? We're doomed! It can make burgers all day!

Is it not horrendously sad that it is indeed possible that a party could win the US presidential race by putting a complete no-brained person like Palin into the position of VP simply to garner a whole lot of publicity, thereby taking the heat off... oh, I dunno... REAL ISSUES?

Isn't that just enough to make you weep?

That

a) A party would stoop that low
&
b) The majority of the populous of the most powerful nation on earth... WOULD FALL FOR IT?

Fucking hell we need more money pumped into the space race so we can all have our own space ships, and all chose our own planets to colonize... urgh.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'maher, rushdie, garofalo, fund, palin' to 'maher, rushdie, garofalo, fund, palin, bush doctrine' - edited by swampgirl

Obama should have picked Hilary over generic white guy Biden .  Let's face it..  Both candidates picked their v.p. they thought would make fence sitters come over.Obama should have picked Hilary.

..another thing. Libs are attacking Palin right into a job. You wait and see. They better bring the focus back on Obama and McCain.

It's the Chewbacca defense...

Wave something so confusing in front of the voters ("She has no fucking grip on policy?!?!??") that they actually quit trying to make sense of it and just go for the shiny one.

With Lehman's going under and the financial crisis apparently deepening under the Bush administration, I shudder to think what those retards will do for 4 more years.

I think I should create a bloody signature consisting of:

G'luck America...

I seem to be using it a lot lately.

i actually couldn't remember the Bush Doctrine. Just so you know.

This is why I love Janeane Garofalo.

Hah, I love it... Keep attacking her and she'll get elected... yeah... great threat. You don't have a good defense so you just threaten that if you keep attacking, you'll look bad.

Seriously, she's a wacko. Not pointing it out is a crime because shes going to be running the country for 6 years after McCain has a heart attack.

>> ^MINK:
i actually couldn't remember the Bush Doctrine. Just so you know.


I always thought calling it a "doctrine" was a way of making you think there was something intelligent about it.

And Palin. I don't mind the right-wing loonies but they should at least be able to remember their bullshit and talk about it. She's a disgrace.

And I'm in agreement with the view that Hilary should have been running mate. She would become an asset as the campaign rolled on. I guess their contest had just become too personal.

>> ^MINK:
i actually couldn't remember the Bush Doctrine. Just so you know.


Someone asking to fill the second highest office in the land in 6 weeks is expected to have a long-running professional-level understanding of their country's policies for the last 8 years.

>> ^Xax:
All this talk about Palin over the last week has made one thing crystal clear to me: Obama made a monumental mistake in choosing Biden over Hilary. I've hardly seen or heard anything of Biden in the last week, but I can easily imagine Hilary getting lots of exposure by going after Palin's inadequacy.


The difference is that McCain chose a running mate that might get him elected. Obama chose a running mate that would help him run the country.

Let's think straight about this. If Obama is really serious about making change happen, he's going to have to build a broad, bipartisan coalition. No one will get everything they want, but everyone will get something. This is how Obama worked in the Illinois state Senate, and it's how he's worked in the US Senate.

To get Congress on board, he's going to need to enlist the help of long-standing senior members. This is what makes Biden a good choice.

And you should remember that, even though McCain has made up points in the popular vote, he's still significantly behind in projected electoral college votes. It's unlikely that McCain will be able to make up the difference in only two months.

>> ^ponceleon:
Hah, I love it... Keep attacking her and she'll get elected... yeah... great threat. You don't have a good defense so you just threaten that if you keep attacking, you'll look bad.
Seriously, she's a wacko. Not pointing it out is a crime because shes going to be running the country for 6 years after McCain has a heart attack.


I'm not threatening.. it's an observation of what I perceieve as an understanding of the way people react to things. The media needs to be careful in the way they criticize her or it will backlash, thats all I'm saying.

If the media lays off the sexist, hocky mom stabs and grills her nicely about her inexperience and obvious lack of knowledge on foreign policy then she won't be sympathized.

People like her because she comes across as one of the people, unspoiled by Washington blah blah. If the libs and media can craftily wipe away that glamor shots glo she's has going on, and stop bashing her long enough, they'll more effectivly convince the public she can't do the job on charm and spunk alone.

Yeah, it's nice Biden has buddies in Congress... but Obama needed to think a little more about getting elected first. Ditching Hilary was a mistake. She's more experienced than Obama. Hell she was co-Governor for 8 years and co-President for another 8 years.
It's my opinion his wife could have had something to do w/ that too. She hates her. Women are cats.

It bothered me that she didn't know the Bush doctrine, but the only reason he had to unleash the, "Gotcha", was that she tried to BS her way through the question.

CG: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

SP: [pause, tries to think looks lost] "In what respect Charlie?"

You aren't expected to know everything but BSing your way through the answers is childish when you're a citizen and beyond insanely dangerous when you're an ideologue with the nuclear (or should I say nucular) launch codes.

>> ^MINK:
i actually couldn't remember the Bush Doctrine. Just so you know.


I still disagree with the way "Charlie" asked that question. He should have made it very clear what idea he was talking about and then called her on her (lack of) answer.

A vice presidential candidate does not deserve a reminder prefacing a question about the Bush Doctrine any more than a lawyer would about stare decisis, a webmaster would about CSS, or a macroeconomist would about globalization. If you're a layperson, you don't actually need to know about any of those things. If you're applying for a job in the field, especially the second highest job, you have absolutely no excuse.

The sheer absurdity of a political columnist claiming to not know what the Bush doctrine is just... shit, I can't even think of a word for it! Claiming to not know makes him look like an idiot, a liar, or to many of us, both. What is the upside?

Try this you lying moron, "Sure, I know what the Bush Doctrine is, but I have been writing political columns since 1984 for the Wall Street fucking Journal! I am expected to know. Hell, I even know that Bush broadened its scope in his 2005 inauguration speech to include supporting democratic movements worldwide (how can you state this in an interview in which you claim not to know what the Bush Doctrine is!?!). Understanding policy positions ascribed to the Bush Doctrine are not a prerequisite for governing a small town in Alaska, or even the entire state."

Why doesn't John Fund beat his wife/girlfriend about it?

This really is the best part. He's a wife beater, and he's defending this woman who was so eager to play the gender card she didn't even wait until a comment was made that could even plausibly be called sexist.

Much like douche Novak, it's hard to understand why douche Fund even still has a job.

Oh yeah, and Douche... they define this shit in debates not for the CANDIDATES... they define it for the sake of the VIEWERS of the debate! Even Sarah Palin could have told you that, moron.

>> ^swampgirl:
If the media lays off the sexist, hocky mom stabs and grills her nicely about her inexperience and obvious lack of knowledge on foreign policy then she won't be sympathized.

The idea that people applying for the highest position in our country should be treated "respectfully" or "nicely" makes me so angry seeing straight becomes difficult. She should not be treated with respect and deference. She should be slammed on the issues and on her inconsistencies over and over and over again until the election. So should McCain, and so should Obama, and so should Biden. We need to know the truth, and none of them deserve any quarter from the media.

^No David you're not getting it. What I mean is the media (not Gibson..he was too nice really) should press the issues to her, but they've got to stop w/ the hockey mom/gun totin redneck crap. That's all. It only makes them act 'elite' and puts down the average jane and joe. They are who you want to make happy for their vote right?

Ultimately elections is game playing right? Damn, strategy? The media does play its part. Don't get caught up in your outrage and try and drag her down. You can let her do it herself by well debate.

Gibson should have done better. That interview looked almost like a stalemate to me. But that's another thread.....

The idea that choosing Palin was somehow "putting one over" on people when the marxists are running a closet muslim community organizer with ties to an indicted slumlord, racist "reverend" and domestic terrorist is the real laff. You won't see any on liberalsift, but the last few debates with McCain, B. Hussein stuttered more than an epileptic holding a jackhammer during an earthquake.

Surprising that Maher would address the opinion that he's considered a snob. Maher really does think no one is smarter than Maher.

Janeane - tits or GTFO.

Rushdie - ingrate that radical Muslims tried to assassinate, critical of those going after radical Muslims. Someone give the studio's address to hezbollah.

does it really matter? anyone who is voting for either party has already lost sight of what's really at stake.

can anyone explain to me the differences between Obama/McCain's stance on:

1. preemptive warfare
2. increasing the size of government
3. FISA
4. federal bailouts of businesses (such as feddie mae/frannie mac)
5. the federal reserve
6. personal liberties
7. bringing all troops home from all 741 military bases
8. foreign policy in afghanistan
9. stance on the georgia/russia conflict
10. the ICC
11. inflation
12. income taxes
13. the war on drugs
14. offshore drilling
15. the patriot act
16. the graham-levin amendment
17. supported school of economics
18. creationism
19. agricultural subsidies
20. social security entitlements
21. the bureaucratic class
22. national debt

I agree with you about the "slamming the issues" part. Just do it equally. She needs to slip herself up, not get beaten down.

And where is Obama through all of this hoopla? You see? He's either waiting out for the Palin swoon to be over before he steps in his criticism. (smart)
Or he's just letting everyone else bash her for him? In any case, he needs to be out talking more.

>> ^imstellar28:
does it really matter? anyone who is voting for either party has already lost sight of what's really at stake.
can anyone explain to me the differences between Obama/McCain's stance on:
1. preemptive warfare
"McCain supports the Bush Doctrine and Obama opposes it"

2. increasing the size of government
McCain talks the conservative game of smaller government but has supported all of Bush's expansion of the national government
Obama wants to expand healthcare and other social programs, but says that will come at the expense of other programs (subscribves to PAYGO philosophy)
Not so clear on this one

3. FISA
Obama pissed off liberals with support of FISA
McCain seems to be obfuscating his opinion

4. federal bailouts of businesses (such as feddie mae/frannie mac)
Obama - help homeowners shore up mortgages rather than bail out companies
McCain- too big to fail, bail out companies not speculative homeowners who are whining now

5. the federal reserve
neither cnadidate represents change on this issue (although it is a bit fringe for most americans to care about)

6. personal liberties
is this the FISA question again, or are we talking abortion? too vague to disinguish differences

7. bringing all troops home from all 741 military bases
Ridiculously leading topic that assumes that isolationism is the correct strategy

8. foreign policy in afghanistan
Obama - get Bin Laden, secure AFghan/Pakistani borderlands
McCain - get Bin Laden, but not in Pakistan. Iraq matters more

9. stance on the georgia/russia conflict
Obama - 'there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force – not simply Russian troops.'
McCain - Georgia conflict is the ‘first serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.’ [RIGGGHHHT?!?] Russia's evil!

10. the ICC
Obama - consult with military commanders and examine the track record of the Court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a State Party to the ICC
McCain - 'the ICC was not set up for countries such as the U.S.'

11. inflation
gonna guess that they're both against it

12. income taxes
McCain- continue Bush cuts for wealthiest Americans, give a few pennies to those at the bottom
Obama - let Bush tax cuts expire, give tax breaks to 95% of Americans
graphical representation

13. the war on drugs
Obama - reduce sentences for dealers, needle exchange, nothing about foreign policy
McCain - stronger borders, tougher penalties and sentences, funded wars against drug producing countries (i.e., Colombia)

14. offshore drilling
Obama - can be part of energy plan if it helps gain approval
McCain - we're gonna drill our way outta this in just 2 years, wait 5 years, no 10 years (ok... never)

15. the patriot act
Obama - YES to re-authorization, NO to expanded wiretapping
McCain - YES to re-authorization, YES to expanded wiretapping

16. the graham-levin amendment
Obama - no guantanamo, yes to habeas corpus, no torture, no forced testimony
McCain - no guantanamo, no habeas corpus, no torture (but not really)

17. supported school of economics
Obama - Chicago school of economics
McCain - admitted he doesn't know much about economics

18. creationism
Obama - "religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking" from Audacity of Hope
McCain - doesn't believe in it but VP Palin sure does

19. agricultural subsidies
Obama - limit subsidies, try to get them to small farmers and not corporations
McCain - opposes subsidies, gets in the way of free trade agreements

20. social security entitlements
Obama - remove $97K cap, no privatization, no new commission
McCain - personal savings accounts, maybe raise the cap above $97K

21. the bureaucratic class
Got bored just thinking about researching this

22. national debt
Obama - repeal Bush cuts, end Iraq War, pay-as-you-go system, balanced budget
McCain - debt bad, balanced budget, stop pork and earmarks

I am more informed now, hope you are. Although that took way too long and I am a bit tired of it. If you want more, you can always start here: On the Issues.

He puts the 'Fund' in 'Fundamentalist'.

>> ^swampgirl:
^No David you're not getting it. What I mean is the media (not Gibson..he was too nice really) should press the issues to her, but they've got to stop w/ the hockey mom/gun totin redneck crap. That's all. It only makes them act 'elite' and puts down the average jane and joe. They are who you want to make happy for their vote right?


I'm probably getting more angry than is healthy or useful, but it's not that I don't get it, it's that I don't agree. The media is protected by first amendment rights; they can say whatever they want, which includes unrealistic caricatures and exagerrations of the candidates (see various comedy shows for examples). Running for high public office makes you a magnet for ridicule, not immune to it, and getting sniped on petty and unimportant things is part of the process for all of the candidates.

Most of the media is doing what it has always done, and Palin is playing the politics of victimization, but the McCain/Palin ticket is busy stirring up controversy with one hand while trying to suppress it with the other and blaming others in the process. I haven't heard the "redneck" slight on any but the most outrageous posts on Internet chat sites. The "gun totin'" image is a smokescreen that distracts from the discussion of environmental issues, just as the campaign throws the "sexist" jab at anyone criticizing Palin for any reason. Who is spreading the "hockey mom" image more than anyone else? Sarah Palin herself.

Bottom line -- You are being lied to. The media is trying to do their job. You can argue that they have not been doing their job well (and I would), but this idea that the news media has been taking cheap shots is primarily a smear tactic by the McCain/Palin ticket to drum up controversy and drive the Rovian politics of divisiveness and fear. That's why I get angry; it's a citizens duty to stand up and say "this is a bunch of crap and I'm sick of it." Instead of criticizing the message (which can't be stopped), look deeper at what's being said, who's saying it, and encourage others to do the same.

^aaronfr

I applaud your commitment to finding answers for each of the questions, however, one criticism: you are splitting hairs on a lot of those issues. And that was really my point--both parties are acting like they have drastically different policies, but when it comes to the actual principle, the core of the issue--they agree completely. For example:

13. the war on drugs
Obama - reduce sentences for dealers, needle exchange, nothing about foreign policy
McCain - stronger borders, tougher penalties and sentences, funded wars against drug producing countries (i.e., Colombia)

In both cases Obama and Mccain support the war on drugs--they just maybe want to "tweak it" in different ways. Neither of them is rejecting the core philosophy--they both agree "drugs are bad, m'kay". Thus someone who rejects the principle behind the war on drugs--that maybe drugs aren't bad, has no voice in the two party system which represents his belief.

I mean, yes...there are some "differences" but they are so superficial you really have to claim they have the exact same view. Some of the conclusions you made are also incorrect. For example, preemptive warfare: Obama said in the debates he would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran--if that's not support for preemptive warfare I don't know what is. Also, calling the federal reserve a "fringe policy" is really condoning a complete misunderstanding of 20th and 21st century economic history.

Another example:

2. increasing the size of government
McCain talks the conservative game of smaller government but has supported all of Bush's expansion of the national government
Obama wants to expand healthcare and other social programs, but says that will come at the expense of other programs (subscribves to PAYGO philosophy)
Not so clear on this one

You can't just look at what politicians say. Obama and McCain are both claiming to bring fiscal responsibility to the government--but can you name a single governmental program that either has stated they intend to cut? How many have each of them said they want to expand, or add? They both want more programs, more powers, more funding--and neither of them wants to cut or restrict any of the current programs. How can that possibly result in fiscal responsibility?

I'm with you on most of what you said, imstellar. In fact, taking the time to find these differences highlighted for me how minute and often insubstantial they often are. At the same time, you chose issues on that list which there are not great differences on.

Obama has clearly and definitely backed away from any support of the Bush Doctrine (which you'll find in the link provided above) and has a much more progressive income and corporate tax policy. Also, there is a difference between their Iraq policies, although McCain is slowly moving towards Obama's position. Furthermore, Obama's health care policies are actually a step forward (albeit a small one) whereas McCain's health care plan is a regressive tax on the middle-class. SO... I believe there are fundamental differences between the two parties and the two candidates.

However, I think your larger point is still valid. The United States government operates with as much paralysis as possible (Maher talked about this later in this week's show) where issues get delayed and decisions put off until the problem enters into a crisis. I'm not completely convinced that is result of the two-party system (although it probably doesn't help). There is a cancer in Washington politics that I can't really define but just as we've seen throughout the developing world, its not about the style and shape of democracy, but rather the commitment to getting things done and being responsive to citizens.

On a more practical note, promising to cut funding to programs during a campaign is a sure-fire way to lose the votes of those who depend on it. Being too specific and too wonky also opens you up for criticism and loses the interest of the public. It's not really news to anyone who pays attention but there are several areas to place the blame: the two-party system (which you've highlighted), the role of the media, the disinterest (and stupidity) of the public, the acceptance of a unitary executive, etc.

Ultimately, I'll support Barack because on the few issues where there are differences, I agree with him. Beyond that, you have to judge the character and decision-making logic of the person you vote for; not an easy task and very subjective. And while one might yearn for a third (or even fourth) party candidate to be heard a bit more, unless there are fundamental changes to the way we elect politicians, that ain't gonna happen.

Also:

4. federal bailouts of businesses (such as feddie mae/frannie mac)
Obama - help homeowners shore up mortgages rather than bail out companies
McCain- too big to fail, bail out companies not speculative homeowners who are whining now

Obama and McCain have the same stance on Freddie Mae/Frannie Mac: both want to bail them out. Obama recently said "the housing market has all but collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government".

This is probably one of the most important issues in the economy today--if you bail out one business--you have to bail them all out. And if you bail out every failing business what you are left with is communism.

>> ^aaronfr:
I'm with you on most of what you said, imstellar. In fact, taking the time to find these differences highlighted for me how minute and often insubstantial they often are. At the same time, you chose issues on that list which there are not great differences on.
Obama has clearly and definitely backed away from any support of the Bush Doctrine (which you'll find in the link provided above) and has a much more progressive income and corporate tax policy. Also, there is a difference between their Iraq policies, although McCain is slowly moving towards Obama's position. Furthermore, Obama's health care policies are actually a step forward (albeit a small one) whereas McCain's health care plan is a regressive tax on the middle-class. SO... I believe there are fundamental differences between the two parties and the two candidates.


I tried to choose issues which are of the greatest importance to economics, foreign policy, personal liberties, and national security. It just so happens that the candidates are practically identical on most of these issues.

Obama's healthcare plan is actually a very large step in the very wrong direction. Compare it to the socialized healthcare system that already exists in Britain: the NHS. It is a complete nightmare for everyone involved--except the bureaucrats and government officials who are profiting wildly. The number of hospitals and paitients have declined--despite waiting lists up to 18 weeks and the denial of many treatments--while the number of supervisors and budget surpluses increased!

Obama and McCain's foreign policy is likewise very bad for our economy and for our national sovereignty. We have been at war, hot or cold, almost non-stop for the last 100 years, and are currently fighting two wars, with the addition of a third (iran), fourth (pakistan), and even fifth (russia) maybe coming soon!

It is hard to really fathom just how much government regulation affects your life--because the consequences are often subtle, far-reaching, and depended on several factors. However, keep this in mind:

Before the creation of the ICC, shipping costs were up to 75% cheaper than the years immediately after it, and our railroad system was the best in the entire world. Now, whens the last time you took the train?

Before the creation of the FDA, the average cost to bring a drug to market was $500,000 and average time to market was 25 months. In the years immediately after it, this rose to $54 million and 8 years!

The first nuclear power plant was constructed in 18 months. After the inception of government regulation, current construction takes over 12 years! Talk about progress.

There was not a single energy crisis or shortage of supply before the department of energy came into effect. The result of government intervention were long-lines as gas shortages in the 50s and 60s. Governmental regulation over 30 years ago killed the private market for research in alternative fuels--leading us to precisely the problem we face today.

Prior to minimum wage laws, the average unemployment rate for teenagers was 10%--high, but not much higher than that of the general population (5%). In addition--the percentage for both white and black teenagers was roughly equal. After the inception of the minimum wage laws, unemployment rose to 20% for the white teenagers, and up to 35-40% for black teenagers! How is an unemployed teenager better off than a teenager working for slightly less? Obama wants to raise minimum wage to almost $10 an hour, do you realize how many jobs that is going to eliminate? It also means that the untrained, unskilled, uneducated 15 year old who is unable to deliver you a cheeseburger without pickles is making up to 1/2 to 1/3 as much as college graduates with 4 year degrees! That single policy alone could send our economy into a recession.

The great depression has been shown to have been directly caused by the restrictions the Federal Reserve placed on open market trading of gold--the result of which shrank our money supply by over 66% in one year--causing what would have been a minor contraction to explode into a full-blown depression.

It's actually a bit astonishing to take a product or service, and trace back its history of legislation, lobbying, regulations and see how it has changed over the past 100 years. As a warning: most of what you find, will make you want to puke.

>> ^imstellar28:
It is hard to really fathom just how much government regulation affects your life--because the consequences are often subtle, far-reaching, and depended on several factors.

...

It's actually a bit astonishing to take a product or service, and trace back its history of legislation, lobbying, regulations and see how it has changed over the past 100 years. As a warning: most of what you find, will make you want to puke.


I don't really dispute you on those facts (the ones in '...'), but do you actually expect to ever elect a president or more importantly senators or congressmen, in great numbers, who will dismantle that machine from the inside out? In fact, to change the systemic problems you discussed would require a revolution. Considering the fractured nature of our politics, I don't think that is gonna happen.

>> ^imstellar28:
does it really matter? anyone who is voting for either party has already lost sight of what's really at stake.


And, reading back, I concede the point. Won't stop me from voting though.

edit:
comment withdrawn.

^aaronfr

I admire anyone who has the ability to revise their viewpoint after being presented with new information.

The biggest problem is that our government is philosophically broken. At the start of the 20th century there was a ideological shift which began to permeate society--one which sought to replace "equality of opportunity" with "equality of outcome". This philosophy is still with us today--and is the very reason both parties have such widespread support as compared with third party alternatives.

In order to get this country back on track we need a similar ideological shift--one which reverts back to an emphasis on personal liberties and economic freedom--the very philosophy which was dominant from the 18th century to the dawn of the 20th century. It was this philosophy which gave us the constitution, the declaration of independence, the emancipation of the slaves, and what transformed America into a dominating power on the world stage.

It is our contemporary philosophy which has led us into warfare, moral decay, social inequality, increased governmental power, restrictions on personal freedom, economic disaster, and the bankruptcy of a once wealthy nation.

We don't have to replace our politicians, force policy, or start a violent revolution--all we need is start a grassroots movement to replace the defective philosophy thats been pulled over our eyes for the past 80-100 years. One which has become so ingrained in our lives, it's as if we forgot what America really stands for.

>> ^imstellar28
It is our contemporary philosophy which has led us into warfare, moral decay, social inequality, increased governmental power, restrictions on personal freedom, economic disaster, and the bankruptcy of a once wealthy nation.
We don't have to replace our politicians, force policy, or start a violent revolution--all we need is start a grassroots movement to replace the defective philosophy thats been pulled over our eyes for the past 80-100 years. One which has become so ingrained in our lives, it's as if we forgot what America really stands for.


in my opinion, "population" is a more appropriate word than "philosophy" for that first quoted paragraph. it's not a perfect fit, but i believe it starts one thinking about the inadequacy of a two-party system. you speak of framers' intent, and while i would also advocate a return to that, it has clearly become impossible... previously, 200 years ago, voters were envisioned as property owners with a vested interest in informed policy-making. that personal interest dictated the democracy, and worked so well for a while because the participants in the system cared about issues that affected their livelihoods, not their sensibilities.

at any rate, i'd argue that the current massiveness of america -- and i include its global reach through corporate (over)extension -- prevents any sort of meaningful difference between the two parties. these days, everyone pretty much wants the same things: they want their money to buy needed things like shelter, food, luxuries; they want their government to provide things like mail, roads, and security; and they want to be left alone in things that do not directly influence their daily lives.

shrug, i don't really know for certain what an alternative is, and that's bad form for debate... it should be obvious that something is completely broken when solutions to problems or stances on issues are not discussed, and instead things like "he seems like a good guy" or "she has nice bangs" or "his name is funny" matter the most.

in conclusion,

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^MINK:
i actually couldn't remember the Bush Doctrine. Just so you know.

Someone asking to fill the second highest office in the land in 6 weeks is expected to have a long-running professional-level understanding of their country's policies for the last 8 years.


oh i totally agree, she should know, i am just sayin', it wasn't such a great doctrine, i am not surprised if "normal" people who are very clued up on other things forgot about that one thing.

>> ^MINK:
i actually couldn't remember the Bush Doctrine. Just so you know.


I forgot what it meant, too.

Essentially, it's the policy of preemptive war.

Which is another way of saying that Bush can now order a strike on any country based on his word that the country is a threat.

If Palin answered "Which Bush doctrine, Chaaaaarlie?" I might give her more credit. But suggesting the presence of more than one reference to a Bush doctrine is not a defense.

I know what the Bush Doctrine is. I knew exactly what "Charlie" was asking when he asked it.

Why? Because I'm a reader.

And because, as Rushdie said, it's the single most important policy shift in the last 100 years of US history.

500 years from now, when people have long forgotten who Sarah Palin was, they will still be writing about the Bush Doctrine. It will be in the first line in his biography.

I know these things. And I'm not running for the White House.

Aren't 8 years of cluelessness enough?

^amen brother! Too bad the stupids out there think the republicans arent going to be "more of the same"

Loved it when Bill M said "this is not american idol!" :-) I'd give him a gold star for that... (and not a sift star i mean like a little golden sticker star.)

people make the assumption that everyone knows what the bush doctrine is because they have defined it for themselves already. thats the problem, they have settled on their self definition and assumed that is the only interpretation either because they are arrogant or stupid. i guess it happens when you spend your time in a media/social bubble where everyone agrees with you, so you can just assume such things.

as for them on palin, they basically assume the worst to make their points which is just a cheap tactic. asking for a question to be narrowed is perfectly acceptable. and its only partisan nonsense that makes it into any issue at all.

and well, mahers show has become a bit of a sham, 3 on 1 is the best they can do. last week it was worse, it was 4 people all agreeing. if you think such shows are good political discussions you have no right complaining about right wing talk radio.

i'm not sure its good to concentrate on such trivial things. it shows how weak your opposition is that you have to sink to such a low level of discussion.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.