cherdano Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 The more time that goes by, the more clear it becomes she is an absolute joke. There is simply no question about it. Let's just call it a high-variance decision. Either the people will love her and McCain wins, or not and he hasn't hurt what seemed like a hopeless situation to start with anyway. Given that it shouldn't be possible for the Republican Party to win this election after their achievements, I think making a high-variance choice was probably the right thing to do for them. It was a high variance decision when you didn't know much about her. If they had actually tried to find out something about her, they would have noticed she had hardly been interested in politics, that the Trooper-gate allegations are credible, etc. etc. I guess I can always defend bidding 4♠ over a 4♥ preempt by saying "it was a high variance decision before I looked at my hand, and we were behind". But when it turns out that I have a 3244 with 5 hcp.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Thinking about it, I believe my current resume at age 26 qualifies me better to be a mayor than hers did when she was elected! I'll let you know when I decide to run, Pahrump here I come! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Can you say, "Karl Rove"? They may not expect an elected Republican president, but the party insiders were obviously more interested in securing their evangelical right wing than in selecting a credible candidate such as, say Mike Huckabee. He is on the outs so therefore not interested nor interesting. Can you say "Jeb Bush" for President in 2012? (Talk about end-times!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Ayers was founder of the "Weathermen", an anti-vietnam protest group that set off pipe bombs to protest the war. So it can be considered that he was a domestic terrorist... How could it not be considered that he was a terrorist? Depends on your definition of terrorist I guess. Are animal rights activists who set up a bomb in an empty lab terrorists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Ayers was founder of the "Weathermen", an anti-vietnam protest group that set off pipe bombs to protest the war. So it can be considered that he was a domestic terrorist... How could it not be considered that he was a terrorist? Depends on your definition of terrorist I guess. Are animal rights activists who set up a bomb in an empty lab terrorists? what's your definition, arend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Are animal rights activists who set up a bomb in an empty lab terrorists? IMO, yes. Others' mileage may vary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 In general I think the candidates try to pick VPs to fill apparent holes in their resumes. For Obama, the main issues were: (1) He is quite young. This makes him "inexperienced" just because he doesn't have a 30-year record in politics. It makes it harder for him to connect with older voters. (2) His experience in foreign policy is particularly lacking; serving in the Illinois legislature and/or as a community organizer helps you understand domestic issues but not so much foreign policy. So Obama made a sensible pick of Joe Biden, who is older, with many years in the senate and service on foreign policy committees. When John McCain picked Palin, I think the main issues were: (1) McCain is very old and has been in Washington for a long time. It is hard for him to claim that he is a "change candidate" under these circumstances. (2) McCain has trouble connecting with the evangelical part of the Republican base because he is not that religious and doesn't feel comfortable talking a lot about opposition to abortion and gay rights (and in many cases has taken sort of mild positions on them). Picking Palin must've seemed reasonable at the time, because she is young and an "outsider" with a record of reform and strong evangelical credentials. And in fact it did help McCain for a while. The big problem now, in addition to Palin's own missteps is: (3) McCain does not understand the economy, has supported deregulation that was partly to blame for the current crisis, and stated "fundamentals of the economy are strong" time and again when people were losing their jobs. Sarah Palin does not offer any help to McCain on the economy. If he knew this crisis was coming (which he obviously didn't, although Obama interestingly might've suspected) then he would've done better to pick Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Ayers was founder of the "Weathermen", an anti-vietnam protest group that set off pipe bombs to protest the war. So it can be considered that he was a domestic terrorist... How could it not be considered that he was a terrorist? Depends on your definition of terrorist I guess. Are animal rights activists who set up a bomb in an empty lab terrorists? what's your definition, arend? A terrorist is someone who tries to terrorize the population by attacking and killing civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Ayers was founder of the "Weathermen", an anti-vietnam protest group that set off pipe bombs to protest the war. So it can be considered that he was a domestic terrorist... How could it not be considered that he was a terrorist? Depends on your definition of terrorist I guess. Are animal rights activists who set up a bomb in an empty lab terrorists? what's your definition, arend? A terrorist is someone who tries to terrorize the population by attacking and killing civilians. I still like the (traditional) distinction between states and "non state actors" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Ayers was founder of the "Weathermen", an anti-vietnam protest group that set off pipe bombs to protest the war. So it can be considered that he was a domestic terrorist... How could it not be considered that he was a terrorist? Depends on your definition of terrorist I guess. Are animal rights activists who set up a bomb in an empty lab terrorists? I can't tell if you are serious Arend. Obviously someone that plants a BOMB with the intent to harm is a terrorist. I just hope your 'demonstrators' (if thats what you choose to call them) make damn sure the janitor isn't around when they pull this stunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 They should have a word for using bombs to blow things up and cause massive damage to property that doesn't belong to oneself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I just hope your 'demonstrators' (if thats what you choose to call them)... Please, Phil. "Freedom fighters." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Obviously someone that plants a BOMB with the intent to harm is a terrorist. I think some people would draw a line between "intent to inflict bodily harm on humans" and "intent to inflict harm to property". But, I agree with you, either is a terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 They should have a word for using bombs to blow things up and cause massive damage to property that doesn't belong to oneself. Maybe destructionalist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Vandalist? Somebody who destroys property and is careful not to hurt any people is not a terrorist. Not every criminal is a terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Vandalist? Somebody who destroys property and is careful not to hurt any people is not a terrorist. Not every criminal is a terrorist. Han, he said bomb. A vandal (not "ist") is someone who tags building or slashes tires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Terrorist has become a very vague word. Some use it as synonyms for groups of people conspiring to set bombs. Others seem to use it as a synonym for s.th. like "enemy of the state". Terrorism is a tricky word to define. I really don't think throwing a bomb into an empty Google cafeteria (at night after carefully checking there are no janitors or cleaning staff around) in order to protest privacy violations should be denoted "terrorism". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I think it depends on your purpose. If animal rights activists who set off a bomb in an empty lab do so with the intent of striking fear in the people who work there (perhaps fear that the next bomb will be set off in the middle of the work day) then IMO they're terrorists. The guy protesting (carefully) privacy violations isn't a terrorist, he's a vandal. Unless someone does happen to get killed. Then he's a murderer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 As a practical matter not sure how one carefully checks no guards or people are around before a bomb goes off but it sounds like a swell thing in theory. Not sure how we can make sure no fireman dies in fire aftermath but ok.....lets assume the vandals are that good. I agree getting a perfect definition of terriost is tough. In general Ithink most of us think of them as bombing for some political, non monetary purpose,but agree that is not a perfect definition. USA dropped atom bombs for several reasons but one of the big ones was to strike terror in the political class to surrender. Fire bombing of Toyko and other cities were meant to strike terror among other reasons. One can argue, no declared war and set off "small" bombs is terror.One can argue that even terrorists have declared war...just no one bought it! But no matter what; huge bombs are acts of war.... But I think the more interesting discussion is.......the debate: We can never win a war fighting ..."you fill in the blank"......now what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Since Phil (and he may not be alone) seems to define the word "terrorist" as "bomb planter" then I will be careful with using the word, just to avoid misunderstandings. Nice to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vuroth Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Someone who plants a bomb hoping to make people afraid is a terrorist. Someone who plants a bomb hoping to create chaos is an anarchist. Someone who plants a bomb, but isn't trying to scare anyone, is an optimist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 If we are in a war on terror, does that mean that the terrorists are no longer terrorists but soldiers? If so, then maybe it makes perfect sense to attack some country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Some of the events of the last few days give me cause to revisit some comments from the early stages of the previous “Palin as VP” thread.At the time Palin was chosen as the Republican candidate for VP I made a couple predictions:First: I argued that Palin would implode. More specifically, I noted that Palin would rally the far right of the Republican base but would push the alienate the political center and drive them into Obama’s camp. The choice struck me as a Hail Mary pass. At a very superficial level Palin looks quite attractive. McCain was praying that her negatives wouldn’t catch up with her positives before the first Tuesday in November. Second: I also predicted that the Palin selection would lead to an extremely polarized election. At the time I made these comments, most people chose to focus on my own suggestion that I didn’t think that McCain had a prayer of winning without election night chicanery in battleground states like Ohio and Florida. I also claimed that I wouldn’t be willing to recognize the election results were McCain to win under these types of circumstances. (I also predicted that many Democrats would act in a similar manner). Some of my other claims were lost in the shuffle: More explicitly, I commented that Palin was whipping the uglier portions of the Conservative base into a frenzy. I felt that said individuals probably wouldn’t deal with things too well when their candidate went down in flames come the first Tuesday in November. Its been quite interesting watching the political coverage from Palin/McCain’s recent campaign events. Nothing I’ve seen so far dissuades me from my original views. Palin, especially, is working very hard to demonize Obama. Its not playing well with anyone except for the hard right base, but they’re drinking it up. Election night and the weeks following are gonna be UGLY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I watched Saturday night live yesterday and I thought the debate was quite funny. I agree that the commercials were ugly. (mostly because they seemed to take more time than the program itself, how come anybody is still watching this sh*t?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Some years ago I lived next door to a man who had spent some years in prison for his role in the bombing of an abortion clinic. I don't know the details but I think he drove the car and I think no one was killed or injured. For purposes of discussion, suppose that this is correct. What should be my approach? When I first met him I thought him intense and a little scary. In fact, he was a fine neighbor. He had eleven kids, one each year except when he was in prison, partly making up for this gap with twins one year. (Eventually I believe his wife put her foot down, or put something down.) He home schooled his kids through grade school. (Actually, he also taught some other kids who had been in trouble in the school system.) The oldest, a girl, found that when she went to high school she was a good deal ahead of most other students. They moved before all the kids were grown but his oldest son got into (and succeeded at) the Air Force academy and, I believe, joined the paratroopers. When the kid was younger we employed him to do odd jobs and he was both trustworthy and extremely competent. He came around a couple of times for help with his math and he was a serious student and a quick study. He was competitive at wrestling in the home school league and later on the high school team. If I had any reason to believe that my neighbor was still making bombs I would have called the FBI. I had no reason to believe this. He brought up some political issues once, I explained my views, and after that we pretty much had a undeclared agreement to avoid such topics. Living next door, it was obvious that we were not churchgoers. He did not suggest that we come to his. It's easy to say "Oh, he pals around with terrorists". People have a past, but they also have a present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.