All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Media Bias Poll
12/3/2012 10:34 AM
Posted by The Taint on 12/1/2012 9:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/30/2012 10:19:00 PM (view original):
I'm not defending my party because I don't have a party.  I'm registered as an unaffiliated voter.

The only thing I'm "defending" Palin about is the fact that I believe the media treated her extremely unfairly.  It went well beyond challenging her qualifications (or lack thereof), and became a vicious vendetta.  Remember "Caribou Barbie"?

I find it extremely puzzling that the same people who were concerned that Sarah Palin was "a heartbeat away from the Presidency" don't seem to have any concerns that a jackass like Joe Biden is just a heartbeat away himself.
I'll bet Biden could tell you what magazines/ news outlets he reads.
I can tell you what magazines/news outlets I read.

Me for VP?   Do I have your vote?
12/3/2012 10:40 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/3/2012 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 12/1/2012 9:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/30/2012 10:19:00 PM (view original):
I'm not defending my party because I don't have a party.  I'm registered as an unaffiliated voter.

The only thing I'm "defending" Palin about is the fact that I believe the media treated her extremely unfairly.  It went well beyond challenging her qualifications (or lack thereof), and became a vicious vendetta.  Remember "Caribou Barbie"?

I find it extremely puzzling that the same people who were concerned that Sarah Palin was "a heartbeat away from the Presidency" don't seem to have any concerns that a jackass like Joe Biden is just a heartbeat away himself.
I'll bet Biden could tell you what magazines/ news outlets he reads.
I can tell you what magazines/news outlets I read.

Me for VP?   Do I have your vote?
Archie comic books don't count.
12/3/2012 10:58 AM

Magazines are magazines.  Don't confuse the issue.

12/3/2012 3:58 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 12/3/2012 4:50:00 AM (view original):
Who exactly said that?
you did.

Friends are not as important as peace is your theme.

And Nato allies are irrelevant.

Try to read what you write sometimes.
12/3/2012 7:22 PM
A) yes, I do believe that avoiding war between the United States and Russia trumps any alliance; I think if a long-term NATO ally were attacked it would be reasonable to make threats but probably not to engage in any actual conflict with Russian forces, and I think suggesting that existing Russian conflicts should be intentionally brought under NATO influence is just foolhardy.  Obviously the goal would be to get Russia to back down, but the risk is far too extreme.

B) I am NOT the left.  I voted for McCain 4 years ago and Romney this year.  You don't have to be a raging liberal to see that you're too stupid to even do a good job mirroring what Fox News tells you.
12/3/2012 7:27 PM
She said Ukraine and possibly Georgia should be brought into Nato and if the are in Nato we have to defend them.

The idea that we dont need friends and no matter what we should not honor our treaties is the stupidest thing anyone on the left has said about military issues since McGovern.

When you misrepresent what I said that egregiously obviously you can make it look stupid.  I didn't say "no matter what we should not honor our treaties," I said we should not honor any treaty-based mandate for military action against one specific country.  I get the impression you're old enough to have lived through at least the end of the Cold War, you shouldn't be shocked by the idea that it's not smart for the US and Russia to fight.  Just because we're not active enemies anymore doesn't mean MAD doesn't still exist.  These are still 2 countries that can literally blow up the planet if they want too badly enough, and can easily kill every human being on Earth.  Are you really stubborn enough that you'll say it's a good idea not only to fight the Russians, but to unnecessarily bring non-NATO members actively engaged in conflict with the one other country that can easily kill every American citizen in hours into NATO while engaged in a pre-existing conflict with that country?  Are you that set on proving Palin was a good candidate?  Are you actually stupid enough to agree with that sentiment?  Seriously?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/4/2012 2:54 AM
The only reason that MAD works is the belief that the other side would go to war if any ally was attacked.

I was alive during a lot of the cold war and was interested in military and foreign policy issues. I used to have a reoccuring dream about nuclear war.

If we let our allies get picked off we are in a "Red Dawn" scenario before we can blink an eye.
12/4/2012 8:53 AM

Patrick Swayze would save us. 

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/4/2012 9:57 AM
12/4/2012 8:42 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/4/2012 2:54:00 AM (view original):
The only reason that MAD works is the belief that the other side would go to war if any ally was attacked.

I was alive during a lot of the cold war and was interested in military and foreign policy issues. I used to have a reoccuring dream about nuclear war.

If we let our allies get picked off we are in a "Red Dawn" scenario before we can blink an eye.
You're still ignoring the critical fact that the nations in question WERE NOT OUR ALLIES.  Palin isn't even advocating simple defense of our allies, which as I've said I think would not have been a good idea, but I can see where this is a negotiable point.  Certainly I'm not going to dismiss the argument that we need to protect our allies.  There's a big difference between saying we'll go to war with Russia if they attack Great Britain and actively bringing Russian conflicts into a US military treaty.  That's not defending an ally.  It's basically going out looking for conflict with Russia.  Taking an action to deliberately incite US-Russian conflict.  It's not remotely the same thing.  How are you missing this?  The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically a question of one side provoking the other, we were, according to all inside sources, extremely lucky not to have gone to nuclear war, and afterwards neither side actively provoked the other into conflict.  Obviously we were still at a stand-off, but neither side took any action to immediately incite a potentially catastrophic conflict between the United States and the USSR/Russia.  Inviting Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO while in a Russian conflict would easily be the most aggressive move made by either side since the CMC.  And you're saying it would have been a good idea.  Fortunately nobody with the credentials to actually get into government was so stupid.
of 10
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Media Bias Poll

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.