Is Sarah Palin Committing Treason? Actinanass Address This

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
I remember during the GW regime, Republicans called for the prosecution of those that dared to criticize GW and Cheney when they were not in the US as treasonous. Is this further evidence of the hypocrisy of the right and Republicans?

source: Politico

<!--/.story-toolbar-->
110319_palin_328_ap.jpg

Sarah Palin speaks at the India Today Conclave on Saturday in New Delhi, India.​

<IFRAME id=iframe_odiogo_0 height=0 src="" frameBorder=0 width=290 name=iframe_odiogo_0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>

Moments after saying she wouldn't criticize Barack Obama abroad, Sarah Palin in India on Saturday said that if she were president there would have been "less dithering, more decisiveness" on Libya.

Pressed in a much tougher question-and-answer session than Palin has recently allowed herself to be subjected to during appearances in the U.S, the former Alaska governor told conference attendees at the India Today Conclave in New Delhi that Obama had not shown enough conviction in executing a strategy in Libya.
<!--/.embed-mod--><!--/.story-embed-->


Asked how she would have handled the Libyan uprising had she been president, Palin told India Today Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie: "I won’t criticize what [Obama's] foreign policy has been. But certainly there would have been more decisiveness."

Palin described the "rich tradition" in America of weighing in on the side of those fighting for freedom, suggesting that the president should have declared earlier his support for those opposing Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi.

Palin, who is considering a run for the White House, said her strategy would have shown "less dithering, more decisiveness."
But Palin backed much of Obama's overall game plan, as she said that ground troops should not be used in the conflict and indicated that strategic air strikes and a no fly zone are appropriate measures.

She struggled to provide pointed answers to several of Purie's questions on foreign affairs, but was very much at ease talking about her own political prospects and those of her beloved tea party.

After blasting the mainstream media as untrustworthy — earning one of her few applause lines of the night — Palin was asked why she and John McCain were not able to beat Obama in 2008.

"The media," she responded bluntly, before adding, "No, I’m kidding.”

After Palin described Obama's successful branding as the "change candidate," the moderator pointed out that the label could have just as well applied to Palin.

“I wasn’t the top of the ticket," Palin responded.

After drawing laughter from the audience that made it clear her comment may have come off as a jab at McCain, Palin quickly added: "I wasn’t saying I should have been.”

Palin said that she doesn't yet know whether she'll run for president in 2012. “I don’t think there needs to be a rush still to declare yourself,” she said.

She also noted her sometimes rocky relationship with party leadership.
"I’m pretty independent, and some people in the hierarchy don’t like that," she said.
Palin credited the tea party with having "redefined politics in America in such a good way," and tried to draw a connection between the tea party's advocacy of more personal liberty with India's ongoing push for economic liberalization.

While the question and answer was lively, Palin's remarks to the conference were boilerplate.

She started with a long recital of her background and upbringing in Alaska – standard fare for anyone with the most basic knowledge base on Palin.

Palin did raise some eyebrows, however, when she contended that green energy jobs weren’t providing a boost to the economy, arguing that more oil exploration would provide a better shot in the arm.

Palin pointed to a study showing that showed green energy reforms had eliminated more jobs than it created as evidence that green energy does not have a strong future. Palin recently attacked Barack Obama over rising oil prices, contending that his policies – rather than uprisings in the Middle East – are to blame for his prices at the pump.

While Palin was quick to get into some of her favorite talking points, her appearance at the conference got off to a rough a rough start.

Purie, who introduced her to the gathering, poked fun at Palin's "creative vocabulary" and her polarizing place in American politics in his introduction of the former governor.

Purie identified Palin as the "the sexiest brand in Republican politics" and frequently made clear that not everyone in the United States has a positive view of the former Alaska governor. "Either you love her or hate her," he said.

Alluding to Palin's penchant for sometimes venturing into unique terminology, Purie said "if I may be forgiven for saying so, she has a creative vocabulary."

"Governor Palin, I hope you don't refudiate me," he said, smirking to an amused crowd.

If Palin took the comments as a dig, she didn't show it, thanking Purie for "a kind introduction."

The former governor called the introduction "an exemplification" of the kind of welcome she's received in India.



 
<font size="3">

She is . . .</font size> Ooopps. <font size="1">You said Actinanass.</font size> ;)

Sorry.

QueEx
 
I'm trying to figure out her end game. She must know she as no chance of becoming the president and her political influence on a national scale is negligible. Who is responsible her constance media presence?
 
as long as her name is in the news, she keeps her $$$$ up for speaking fees.


I'm trying to figure out her end game. She must know she as no chance of becoming the president and her political influence on a national scale is negligible. Who is responsible her constance media presence?
 
I see what she is saying, and it's not treason.

Honestly, I think Obama did the right thing in this situation. This situation isn't cut and dry. We still do not understand the motivation for these political movements across the middle east. I can't fault Obama for getting all the intelligence before stepping off that ledge.

However, my issues with Obama is that he will now use this situation for the upcoming budget. I fear that this is a sheer political move by the left. My side better nail him on the issues while supporting our troops abroad. This is a sheer Clintonisque move.
 

She is . . . Ooopps. You said Actinanass. ;)

Sorry.

QueEx

I see what she is saying, and it's not treason.

Honestly, I think Obama did the right thing in this situation. This situation isn't cut and dry.


Why, because I refuse to accept a politician that claimed "Change We Can Believe In," and now takes the expedient route to appease his enemies?

Not because you refuse to accept; but, perhaps, because you refuse to see political realities. I'm not happy with the outcome either but professionally I believe that I understand the art of settlement which often involves engaging in reasoned compromise.

Interesting, two different political points of view, same result.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to figure out her end game. She must know she as no chance of becoming the president and her political influence on a national scale is negligible. Who is responsible her constance media presence?
There is no end game! She is the talking head for the far right wing. While she draws all the attention the other right winger keeps attacking in the shadows!!

Diversion, Diversion, Diversion,

Also who is paying for her Oversea trip????

Dollar%20Sign.jpg


:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
You defending tpotus regardless and aa defending Palin blindly. Interestingly how there was lack a of criticism on both parts.

LOL. I don't think blindly. I think, reasonably. Know the difference. Know too that we see things through different prisms. I know that there are inherent contradictions in most things and I don't fool myself otherwise.

QueEx
 
LOL. I don't think blindly. I think, reasonably. Know the difference. Know too that we see things through different prisms. I know that there are inherent contradictions in most things and I don't fool myself otherwise.

QueEx

LOL. I don't think blindly. I think, reasonably.

Is this quantifiable or is this just an opinion.
 
Listen Hoss, you got something to say, just say it. I said what I said. If you think otherwise, show it. I'm not going to round n round with you over my opinion. Thats what you call bargaining, against yourself.
 
Listen Hoss, you got something to say, just say it. I said what I said. If you think otherwise, show it. I'm not going to round n round with you over my opinion. Thats what you call bargaining, against yourself.

I said what I said aways back. My objective criticism of President Obama's hypocrisy should not be misconstrued as something from the far left. You used the term reasonable. I applaud you for your high opinion of yourself, however we who support the President must not fall in to the same trap has the republicans. Are we striving for a better presidency?

Listen Hoss

birdman33a.JPG
 
I said what I said aways back. My objective criticism of President Obama's hypocrisy should not be misconstrued as something from the far left.


I totally agree. However, seems I may have struck a nerve with the word, "Left". Did I throw a rock?


You used the term reasonable. I applaud you for your high opinion of yourself, however we who support the President must not fall in to the same trap has the republicans.Are we striving for a better presidency?


We who support should not fall into the trap or misbelief that there "our" views are the ONLY views. We who support the President should also understand the difference between campaign rhetoric and what a president can legitimately get done, given the political climate and demographics. When we do that, we all might have a better understaning of the possibilities.


I applaud you for your high opinion of yourself,
I hate to say this; and I hope I never have to say it again. But that comment has the flavor of some kind of personal shit. :(

QueEx
 
I totally agree. However, seems I may have struck a nerve with the word, "Left". Did I throw a rock?

You seem to feel that that is some kind of personal slight. I contend that you have bought in to the negative characterization of th e right that anything they don't believe in is "left."



We who support should not fall into the trap or misbelief that there "our" views are the ONLY views. We who support the President should also understand the difference between campaign rhetoric and what a president can legitimately get done, given the political climate and demographics. When we do that, we all might have a better understaning of the possibilities.

We who support the President should also understand the difference between campaign rhetoric and what a president can legitimately get done,

How cynical. So how do we judge a candidates qualifications? In that case GW was justified in his actions.

hate to say this; and I hope I never have to say it again. But that comment has the flavor of some kind of personal shit. :(

QueEx

We all claim to be reasonable and none of us will admit to blind loyalty. Sorry you are taking this personally.
 
You seem to feel that that is some kind of personal slight. I contend that you have bought in to the negative characterization of th e right that anything they don't believe in is "left."

LOL. This "Left" thing gets you going. So that you'll know, being Left is not a bad thing at all in my estimation (why do you think I mix it up with actinanass and gunner over the term?). But, being too far left or too far right, in my opinion, is. So that characterization thing is just inaccurate.


How cynical. So how do we judge a candidates qualifications? In that case GW was justified in his actions.
C'mon man; at least try to stay on topic. Judging qualifications is a diffrent thing from knowing the difference between rhetoric and the doable. That is, one should have an appreciation of whats just rhetoric and what is, in reality (political and otherwise) doable. No ????? Otherwise, we have this dis-junctive understanding of campaigning and governance. No ????


We all claim to be reasonable and none of us will admit to blind loyalty. Sorry you are taking this personally.

C'mon bro.

I'm sorry that you make judgments the way that you do. I can't change that and I'm not interested in trying. But you must know that just because we may see things differently doesn't mean that one person is blind and the other sighted. It simply means we disagree.

BTW, I'm not taking any of this personally; but wouldn't you agree that when one makes a statement about how or what another thinks of himself, it raises inferences about, where did that shit come from, right?

QueEx
 


I remember during the GW regime, Republicans called for the prosecution of those that dared to criticize GW and Cheney when they were not in the US as treasonous. Is this further evidence of the hypocrisy of the right and Republicans?

If what Palin is doing is evidence of the right's hypocrisy, and I agree that it is; what do you call it when Dennis the Menace Kucinich does the same thang ? ? ?

QueEx

 
If what Palin is doing is evidence of the right's hypocrisy, and I agree that it is; what do you call it when Dennis the Menace Kucinich does the same thang ? ? ?

QueEx

Now you are pulling question out of thin air. Post where he has used the excuse of campaign rhetoric. Be reasonable!
 
LOL. This "Left" thing gets you going. So that you'll know, being Left is not a bad thing at all in my estimation (why do you think I mix it up with actinanass and gunner over the term?). But, being too far left or too far right, in my opinion, is. So that characterization thing is just inaccurate.



C'mon man; at least try to stay on topic. Judging qualifications is a diffrent thing from knowing the difference between rhetoric and the doable. That is, one should have an appreciation of whats just rhetoric and what is, in reality (political and otherwise) doable. No ????? Otherwise, we have this dis-junctive understanding of campaigning and governance. No ????




C'mon bro.

I'm sorry that you make judgments the way that you do. I can't change that and I'm not interested in trying. But you must know that just because we may see things differently doesn't mean that one person is blind and the other sighted. It simply means we disagree.

BTW, I'm not taking any of this personally; but wouldn't you agree that when one makes a statement about how or what another thinks of himself, it raises inferences about, where did that shit come from, right?

QueEx

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I hate to say this; and I hope I never have to say it again. But that comment has the flavor of some kind of personal shit. <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape style="WIDTH: 12pt; HEIGHT: 12pt" id=_x0000_i1025 alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.bgol.us/board/images/smilies/frown.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Charles\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
QueEx
<o:p></o:p>



BTW, I'm not taking any of this personally; but wouldn't you agree that when one makes a statement about how or what another thinks of himself, it raises inferences about, where did that shit come from, right?

Yea, right!
 
Now you are pulling question out of thin air. Post where he has used the excuse of campaign rhetoric. Be reasonable!

No, out of thick air!

One would expect Palin's whack-ass to do exactly what she is doing, although her criticism is precisely the kind that others have criticized, under the circumstances, in the past. Nevertheless, while Dennis the Menace is in-country as opposed to being abroad, he is firing off at the highest ranking member of his party on day-got-dam-two (2) while the President is in the throes of a foreign policy mess and the enemy (the Republicans, who are just rubbing their hands together at how they are about to devour his ass) are just chomping at the bit. Analogy close enough for me and too close to call Dennis the got dam Menace any kind of team player. Hence, his conduct is probably worse than Palin's, if you asked me.

I wouldn't have that damn weenie on my team. Seriously. His ass is ball-less. :lol:

He should join up with that other limp s.o.b. across party from him who is making similar noises. You know, Lamar's savior.

But, T.O., go ahead and defend Dennis the fuckin Menace. Aiight. LOL

QueEx
 
Now, may I please go back to being the mild mannered poster and occassional referee?
 
He should join up with that other limp s.o.b. across party from him who is making similar noises. You know, Lamar's savior.

But, T.O., go ahead and defend Dennis the fuckin Menace. Aiight. LOL

QueEx

:smh::smh::smh: QueEx, what you & others are not acknowledging is the fact that Pres Obama bypassed Congress to enforce a UN mandate, just like ol Dubya. UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but of course, you'll come back with a Hannity soundbite to justify Obama's actions.

Obama / Cheney 2012 ! ! ! ! !

war_is_enemy_of_the_poor.jpg
 
:smh::smh::smh: QueEx, what you & others are not acknowledging is the fact that Pres Obama bypassed Congress to enforce a UN mandate, just like ol Dubya. UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but of course, you'll come back with a Hannity soundbite to justify Obama's actions.

Obama / Cheney 2012 ! ! ! ! !
No, I'll just come back with all the other presidents and interventions where there was no prior check-in with Congress. I don't think you'll find that I said it might not be problematic that he didn't check-in; but be honest Lamar, thats not whats on your mind. This is just opportunity for you, LOL. But by tomorrow (oh, its already tomorrow) -- you'll find a way, relevant or not, to bring in a FedRes nexus to this. LOL

QueEx
 
No, I'll just come back with all the other presidents and interventions where there was no prior check-in with Congress. I don't think you'll find that I said it might not be problematic that he didn't check-in; but be honest Lamar, thats not whats on your mind. This is just opportunity for you, LOL. But by tomorrow (oh, its already tomorrow) -- you'll find a way, relevant or not, to bring in a FedRes nexus to this. LOL

QueEx

Just because Reagan, Bush and others before have done it, does not justify its legality or morality. We've been "installing" dictators for over 40 years and it has just created more anti-American sentiment. As I read the opinions of others, foreigners like the people, the culture etc.....It's the leadership they disagree with! We cannot continue to impose Democracy at the barrel of a gun wherever we feel. Real democracy comes from the people of that country.

BTW, yes, the Fed Res is acting as an "enabler" in these overseas endeavors! you do remember we broke as hell, right?
 
Just because Reagan, Bush and others before have done it, does not justify its legality or morality. We've been "installing" dictators for over 40 years and it has just created more anti-American sentiment. As I read the opinions of others, foreigners like the people, the culture etc.....It's the leadership they disagree with! We cannot continue to impose Democracy at the barrel of a gun wherever we feel. Real democracy comes from the people of that country.

BTW, yes, the Fed Res is acting as an "enabler" in these overseas endeavors! you do remember we broke as hell, right?

Lamar, this is deeper than your facial reading of the Constitution. Why do you think (if you aren't aware) that there are no decisions of the Supreme Court on point? Congress too is aware that things are not as clear as you would represent they are -- which is why it passed the War Resolution during Tricky Dick's tenure in the 70's.

Many of those in the opposing party, including your savior, are using this incident in large part as a whipping post to get at the President, ahead of the looming buget fights, etc., short-term, and 2012 longer term.

Stick with your FedRes speculation and musings; this water is deep and might be over your head.

QueEx
 
Stick with your FedRes speculation and musings; this water is deep and might be over your head.

QueEx

My friend QueEx, yeah,it's deep...........its just not water

As I recall, the argument is that the blanket approval itself is unconstitutional because it amounts to a redelegation of constitutionally assigned powers. It would be like Congress passing a resolution declaring that the President can draft and enact laws on his own without having to go through Congress. More accurately, to this particular example, it would be like Congress passing a resolution declaring that the President can draft and enact laws without Congressional intervention, but only if he "explains" things to Congress, and for a limited time period.

That law would be blatantly "unconstitutional". Congress cannot create dictators or monarchs, even if it wanted to. Congress cannot "redelegate" Constitutionally assigned powers to another branch of government without going through the amendment process.

Congress For Kids
By creating three branches of government, the delegates built a "check and balance" system into the Constitution. This system was built so that no one branch of our government could become too powerful.
 
:smh::smh::smh: QueEx, what you & others are not acknowledging is the fact that Pres Obama bypassed Congress to enforce a UN mandate, just like ol Dubya. UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but of course, you'll come back with a Hannity soundbite to justify Obama's actions.

Obama / Cheney 2012 ! ! ! ! !

war_is_enemy_of_the_poor.jpg

now at least Bush talked to congress for a number of months about the situation. Obama just did the shit, and people still don't know the end game of this situation.
 
now at least Bush talked to congress for a number of months about the situation. Obama just did the shit, and people still don't know the end game of this situation.

right, Bush did try to "sell" the war as a just cause (for 9 months) Even had Colin Powell at the UN lyin about WMD's

Pres Obama got with his people & told em (Im paraphrasing) "In about 90 minutes, we gon start droppin Tomahawk missiles in Libya. Thank you very much, I'm goin to South America, peace"
 
Last edited:
you'll come back with a Hannity soundbite to justify Obama's actions.


No you didn't!. You used Hannity and Hannity has issues with Kucinich and QueEx clearly has issues with Kucinich. Is their a commonality there?:hmm:

On the real though, President Obama is not Cheney by any measure. However, my point was, before QueEx deflected and tried to make this about Kucinich, was that, candidate Obama made it clear that he would default to following the law and this is what made him distinct from McSame. I don't think anyone is so naive as to think that under extraordinary situations a president doesn't have the right make extraordinary decisions. But it seems president Obama is developing a pattern in capitulating to the right.
 
right, Bush did try to "sell" the war as a just cause (for 9 months) Even had Colin Powell at the UN lyin about WMD's

And tell the whole story; GW based his evidence on evidence that his administration fabricated.

Pres Obama got with his people & told em (Im paraphrasing) "In about 90 minutes, we gon start droppin Tomahawk missiles in Libya. Thank you very much, I'm goin to South America, peace"


Your paraphrase is disingenuous. President Obama was originally reluctant to intervene in Libya. Which gave me reason to initially praise him on this issue, but ultimately it appears that Hillary convinced him to involve us in to that fray. (This proves that Obama was the correct choice over Hillary.)
 
No, I'll just come back with all the other presidents and interventions where there was no prior check-in with Congress. I don't think you'll find that I said it might not be problematic that he didn't check-in; but be honest Lamar, thats not whats on your mind. This is just opportunity for you, LOL. But by tomorrow (oh, its already tomorrow) -- you'll find a way, relevant or not, to bring in a FedRes nexus to this. LOL

QueEx


What about me? I'm am clearly behind the president and I have issues with this. President Obama, ever since the mid terms has appeared to buy in to the republicans line of we are broke, we don't have the money for this and that, we need to have shared sacrifice. On top of that, he made his presentation to the American people during the campaign that he would not take the same path on foreign conflicts as GW, which was a long line of incorrect, in my opinion, of presidential maneuvers usurping conditional procedures over the last 35 years. Now you justify President Obama's actions by saying that the previous presidents that, from what I may be incorrectly judging, you didn't agree when they were in similar situations. In what case is their the change we can believe in?
 
No you didn't!. You used Hannity and Hannity has issues with Kucinich and QueEx clearly has issues with Kucinich. Is their a commonality there?:hmm:

On the real though, President Obama is not Cheney by any measure. However, my point was, before QueEx deflected and tried to make this about Kucinich, was that, candidate Obama made it clear that he would default to following the law and this is what made him distinct from McSame. I don't think anyone is so naive as to think that under extraordinary situations a president doesn't have the right make extraordinary decisions. But it seems president Obama is developing a pattern in capitulating to the right.

And tell the whole story; GW based his evidence on evidence that his administration fabricated.




Your paraphrase is disingenuous. President Obama was originally reluctant to intervene in Libya. Which gave me reason to initially praise him on this issue, but ultimately it appears that Hillary convinced him to involve us in to that fray. (This proves that Obama was the correct choice over Hillary.)

Thought, do you know the end game of this situation?

Iraq was about wmd's *still think that shit is in syria but oh well*, and to create a viable ally in the region. Bush is batting .500 on this one.

Obama needs to communicate the overall goal in libya.
 
Back
Top