Good move, John :)

dd,

Have you ever heard the rather rude expression "You're farting against thunder"?

I doubt whether even the two us will be able to convince!

:LOL:

Split

I'm not trying to convince anyone Split, people will still be killing each other in the name of their version of the invisible man and seeing conspiracies everywhere they look long after I'm dead and gone.

No Split, I'm just fascinated by how much time and energy people are prepared to expend in order to reinforce their own particular delusion(s).

I remember once watching a documentry about this phenomena ( probably by those lying puppets the BBC :cheesy: ).
Apparently, because we are social animals we have evolved to have a Machiavellian perspective of our fellow humans.

I suppose as social animals this characteristic can serve us well but I think it can also be quite counter productive at times, especially when we have technologies like the internet to act as a catalyst.

So it's in our blood and there's nothing we can do about it other than learn how to recognise when these Machiavellian urges are occurring and how to cope with them.

One day perhaps, guess I wont be around to see it though.

OK, the nights are getting longer so it's time for this truth-phobic, America-phile, atheist to go into hibernation ;).

C U in the Spring :sleep:

assuming of course we haven't all disappeared into a black hole created by the LHC by then.

and in case we do then can I just say......




















God is Great :help:


dd
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to convince anyone Split, people will still be killing each other in the name of their version of the invisible man and seeing conspiracies everywhere they look long after I'm dead and gone.

No Split, I'm just fascinated by how much time and energy people are prepared to expend in order to reinforce their own particular delusion(s).

I remember once watching a documentry about this phenomena ( probably by those lying puppets the BBC :cheesy: ). Apparently, because we are social animals we have evolved to have a Machiavellian perspective of our fellow humans.

I suppose as social animals this characteristic can serve us well but I think it can also be quite counter productive at times, especially when we have technologies like the internet to act as a catalyst.

So it's in our blood and there's nothing we can do about it other than learn how to recognise when it's happening to us and how to cope with it.

One day perhaps, guess I wont be around to see it though.

OK, the nights are getting longer so it's time for this truth-phobic, America-phile atheist to go into hibernation ;).

C U in the Spring :sleep:

assuming of course we haven't all disappeared into a black hole created by the LHC by then.

and in case we do can I just say...






















God is Great :help:


dd

Like you, during my long life, I have developed a lack of faith in man's humanity to his fellows. As you say, it is best to stand back and try to discover the catch but, if you hibernate until spring, you might wake up to some surprises. Hope springs eternal, etc---

However, to take part in a plot to get America into a war smacks of desperation on the part of someone. If it had happened, the Washington Post would have got to the bottom of it by now.

As for Obama, he is just another politician, as far as I am concerned, so Mr Average American might as well vote for someone who appears to make herself transparent----she probably, doesn't, but still.....

In any case, neither party is likely to make much difference.

Split
 
However, to take part in a plot to get America into a war smacks of desperation on the part of someone. If it had happened, the Washington Post would have got to the bottom of it by now.

Do you believe Churchill planned the sinking of the Lusitania ?

Were the secondry explosions from amunitions in her hold ( breaking neutrality ) or was it just a coal dust explosion ?

As for Obama, he is just another politician, as far as I am concerned, so Mr Average American might as well vote for someone who appears to make herself transparent----she probably, doesn't, but still.....

In any case, neither party is likely to make much difference.

Split

Obama is much too good to be true, he's another Blair, the Yanks are in for one hell of a disappointment.


dd
 
Do you believe Churchill planned the sinking of the Lusitania ?

Were the secondry explosions from amunitions in her hold ( breaking neutrality ) or was it just a coal dust explosion ?



Obama is much too good to be true, he's another Blair, the Yanks are in for one hell of a disappointment.


dd

Good morning DD,

You obviously looked at the sinking of the Lusitania? Do you not wonder if the sinking was in some way facilitated, assisted or some body turned their backs on the tragedy?

In the least do you not feel one sad evil cunning body was sitting/hiding somewhere rubbing his hands with glee and tucking into a roast lunch saying YES! (I'm not referring to the Germans).

Why did it sink so fast when it's multiple bulk containers meant it shouldn't even have sunk at all - unlike the Titanic?

Who took the decision for the civilian ship (with influential American citizens) to carry arms and explosives?

Would your perspective change if you or your family were on the Lusitania or Twin Towers on how you felt about the conduct of our governments?


Most people are only concerned about their own existance but if we don't point out errors of our ways how will we ever tell the difference between right and wrong.


No hard feelings and DD and I'm sure the 911Truth.org sent you to that cosy slumber much sooner than you could have imagined... :cheesy:

Best regards (y)
 
Good morning DD,

You obviously looked at the sinking of the Lusitania? Do you not wonder if the sinking was in some way facilitated, assisted or some body turned their backs on the tragedy?

In the least do you not feel one sad evil cunning body was sitting/hiding somewhere rubbing his hands with glee and tucking into a roast lunch saying YES! (I'm not referring to the Germans).

There is no doubt Churchill knew that the sinking of American shipping by U-boats could bring the US into the war on the side of the Brits.

Did he plan the sinking of the Lusitania ? No I don't think so.

However, I suspect it is quite possible he wasn't as enthusiastic as he could have been in protecting US shipping.

At the very worst I think intelligence reports were delayed/withheld ( which is a very serious charge )

Why did it sink so fast when it's multiple bulk containers meant it shouldn't even have sunk at all - unlike the Titanic?

Who took the decision for the civilian ship (with influential American citizens) to carry arms and explosives?

As for the explosions, I think it's more or less accepted now that they were coal dust explosions.


dd
 
Ships like her were not designed to be sunk by torpedo. The manner of her sinking and any mysterious explosions were completely unheard of before the advent of submarine warfare and torpedos.

Even in WWII ships sunk without trace, while others, like San Demetrio and Ohio made it to port with terrble damage.

In New York, there must have been spies galore and, probably, the ship's cargo was no secret so, while it is possible that the Admiralty planned everything it must have been obvious to submarine captains that all kinds of ships made a landfall off the Irish coast and which ones had the important cargos. Once again, not enough proof. Just another good story for the press and after it had happened it was only natural that the British would make the best out of the propaganda .

In those days, sailors were more chivalrous that they became in WWII, this sub being the first to attack an unarmed passenger liner. There is, always, a first time for everything. It happened that Lusitania met an unscrupulous U-boat captain. There's nothing more to it than that.

Split
 
Seems like being on a self-proclaimed mission from God to kill animals, promote Guns, the Death Penalty, and the Iraq war aren't quite enough to fill her days.

In any normal state she should have been impeached for corruptly providing friends with jobs, while firing people who were only doing their jobs like the librarian who refused Palins absolutely incredible request straight out of some medieval dictatorship to have certain books banned.

"Once Elected (Alaska Governor), Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

NEW YORK TIMES

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of “good old boy” politics and a champion of ethics reform. The charismatic 44-year-old governor draws enthusiastic audiences and high approval ratings. And as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, she points to her management experience while deriding her Democratic rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as speechmakers who never have run anything.

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

Still, Ms. Palin has many supporters. As a two-term mayor she paved roads and built an ice rink, and as governor she has pushed through higher taxes on the oil companies that dominate one-third of the state’s economy. She stirs deep emotions. In Wasilla, many residents display unflagging affection, cheering “our Sarah” and hissing at her critics.

“She is bright and has unfailing political instincts,” said Steve Haycox, a history professor at the University of Alaska. “She taps very directly into anxieties about the economic future.”

“But,” he added, “her governing style raises a lot of hard questions.”

Ms. Palin declined to grant an interview for this article. The McCain-Palin campaign responded to some questions on her behalf and that of her husband, while referring others to the governor’s spokespeople, who did not respond.

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell said Ms. Palin had conducted an accessible and effective administration in the public’s interest. “Everything she does is for the ordinary working people of Alaska,” he said.

In Wasilla, a builder said he complained to Mayor Palin when the city attorney put a stop-work order on his housing project. She responded, he said, by engineering the attorney’s firing.

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

State legislators are investigating accusations that Ms. Palin and her husband pressured officials to fire a state trooper who had gone through a messy divorce with her sister, charges that she denies. But interviews make clear that the Palins draw few distinctions between the personal and the political."...

CONTINUED:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?em
 
In those days, sailors were more chivalrous that they became in WWII, this sub being the first to attack an unarmed passenger liner. There is, always, a first time for everything. It happened that Lusitania met an unscrupulous U-boat captain. There's nothing more to it than that.

Split

Yes, the captains claims that the secondry explosions were obviously amunitions was a delusional attempt at saving his own conscience, it was a war crime and deep down I think he knew it.

dd
 
Don't worry, mate. She's a long way away, you'll be ok!

I never knew a guy so nervous of a mother of five! :p

Split
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSD
Actually looks like even if America goes totally loony and votes for four more years of the same crap we've had for the past 8 we still won't have all that much to fear:

"Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show.

During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.

Many politicians say they typically learn of her initiatives — and vetoes — from news releases.

Mayors across the state, from the larger cities to tiny municipalities along the southeastern fiords, are even more frustrated. Often, their letters go unanswered and their pleas ignored, records and interviews show."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/u...&em&adxnnlx=1221469264-aBxjb8L7VeGyCN2HJYeU1Q

Lol !

This is downright unbelievable:

"The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc."

:eek:

Brown would be forced to resign straight away if he made a school chum Chancellor.
 
"The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.

Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”

It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”


EXACT same crap like with Bush RE dealing with criticism...

If you have nothing to defend your positions with, you slander the critics instead.

Pathetically transparent, how dumb must one be to fall for such kindergarten antics.
 
Yes, the captains claims that the secondry explosions were obviously amunitions was a delusional attempt at saving his own conscience, it was a war crime and deep down I think he knew it.

dd

His company must have told him to do it, though, if he knew about it. Cargo ship masters would have accepted it, the country was at war, after all, but he had all those passengers so he might have been able to refuse, in his case.

This is another case of finding a scapegoat.

We carried that kind of stuff for the French in Viet Nam. It was all on deck, though. Specially constructed magazines. Forty years later, of course. Different rules and regs.

Split
 
Yes, the captains claims that the secondry explosions were obviously amunitions was a delusional attempt at saving his own conscience, it was a war crime and deep down I think he knew it.

dd

Professor Frank Dutton
Core 132
20 July 2001


The Sinking of the RMS Lusitania

It is the spring of 1915, the first world war is taking place in Europe. To you it is nothing more than several European countries in just another war. You hear that American ships traveling to Europe might be attacked regardless of diplomatic relationships. One of your close relatives is going on the Lusitania in May. Your relative mentioned that there was a notice about this. He did not take the note seriously.

On May 7th 1915, the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-boat in the Irish Channel (RMS Lusitania). The sinking of the Lusitania is considered the main reason for the United States joining the war. In this paper you will read about why the Lusitania was built, the Lusitania itself, the fateful sinking of the Lusitania, why Germans targeted ships like the Lusitania, and why it caused the United States to enter the war.

By the end of the nineteenth century, Germany had replaced France as Britain's main economic rival. This rivalry resulted in a competition where each country tried to keep itself superior to the other by building better and faster means of transporting goods and services, so other countries would choose their country's services over the other's. This was especially evident in the manufacturing of warships and weapons for use against possible future enemies, during this time England and Germany developed faster ships and better weapons (RMS Lusitania).

In the 19th century, an award called the "Blue Riband," was created and awarded to the ship that could cross the Atlantic ocean in the least amount of time. Britain's largest shipping line, Cunard Line, repeatedly got this award. In 1897, Britain's supremacy was challenged by a German liner, the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse captured the Blue Riband from Britain, crossing the ocean at an average speed of 21.39 knots (39.57 kilometers per hour). The threat worsened when another German ship, the Kaiser Wilhelm II captured the Blue Riband with an average speed of 22.6 knots (RMS Lusitania).

Britain planned to use the Cunard Line to build a faster ship and recapture the Blue Riband. The Cunard Line was Britain’s largest shipping company. At this time John Pierpont Morgan, an American millionaire, was forming an international trust of shipping companies and bought up many shipping companies. Great Britain had to act before Cunard Line would be bought up and with it Britain’s hope of building the fastest ship became extinguished. For these two main reasons the construction of the RMS Lusitania and the RMS Mauretania was carried out (RMS Lusitania).

The Lusitania was a passenger liner but was built for war. Great Britain requested the liners, the Lusitania and the Mauretania, to be able to resist enemy gunfire and have special places on deck where guns could easily be mounted if Great Britain needed the ships for war purposes. They designed the Lusitania so that it could easily travel 25 knots (RMS Lusitania). This was so it could win back the Blue Riband and regain foreign trade lost to Germany.

On September 7th, 1907, the RMS Lusitania sailed on its maiden voyage to New York. Although the Lusitania did not set any records the first voyage, she captured the Blue Riband on the very next trip. The Lusitania crossed the Atlantic ocean at 23.1 knots. That same year, the Mauretania broke the record with an average speed of 23.69 knots. In 1908, the Lusitania won the Blue Ribband again at 25.01 knots. No ship other than the Lusitania and the Mauretania would capture the Blue Riband until 1929. For this reason, the Cunard project was a success. In 1909 the Lusitania's three-blade propellers were replaced with four-blade propellers to enhance performance and speed further (RMS Lusitania).

Ironically, the U-boat was originally intended for defensive purposes to protect munitions routes. It was only mobilized offensively to counter the British blockade of German ships. The Germans most effective weapon was the submarine, which although still primitive, took the British by surprise. The Germans started on British ship bringing in munitions first, just blocking British and her allies’ ships, not attacking neutral or passenger ships. The Germans had a few problems early on with the U-boats, but once the problems were solved, the U-boats were very effective (Compton-Hall 27).

But why did the Germans attack passenger liners? In 1909, an international law was agreed upon to determine what the difference between "contraband" and "non-contraband" goods were. Contraband goods included all weapons and other materials used in military manufacturing, all of these contraband materials could be controlled and blockaded during a war. Non-contraband shipments such as food, cloth, and other raw goods, all of these could not be regulated through a blockade. Countries could still import and trade these items during war without the threat of being sunk (Compton-Hall 28).

This regulation was a response by Europe mainly against England. At the time England had the most powerful navy and could strangle the economy of any country in Europe with a naval blockade of all goods. By 1915, England blockaded Germany with the support of France. Like many international laws, the law banning the blockade of non-contraband goods was useless to stop Great Britain, so Great Britain disregarded the regulation as it felt fit (Compton-Hall 55).

Since the British were not playing fair anymore, the Germans ignored the regulation as well. The British were loosing to much to the German U-boats, they needed a plan fast. So the British started using other tactics to smuggle munitions into the country. The British loaded neutral ships and passenger liners with munitions. One of these ships was the Lusitania. Great Britain never told passengers that they were on board a ship transporting munitions (Compton-Hall 58).

Needless to say, the German intelligence was wise to this plan soon after it was begun. In 1915 the Germans declared British waters a war zone. This meant that all allied ships in those waters would be torpedoed by German subs. The Germans had placed numerous newspaper ads warning Americans not to travel aboard the Lusitania, which was carrying munitions but masquerading as an ocean liner. Americans believed that as citizens of a neutral country they would not be targeted by the German subs (Compton-Hall 60).

On April 30th 1915, the Lusitania was at New York, being loaded with meat, medical supplies, copper, cheese, oil and machinery. The Lusitania was also secretly being loaded with munitions for Britain for the war. Next to ads in papers for the Lusitania was a notice from the German embassy. It Read:
“NOTICE! Travelers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk. IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 22, 1915.“ (RMS Lusitania).

And the Lusitania was destroyed. The news of the disaster was sent wireless across the Atlantic Ocean to New York. There were riots in many countries over the incident. On May 13, 1915 the President of the United States sent a note to Germany about the sinking of the Lusitania. This note was due mainly to public outcry over the whole situation (RMS Lusitania).

The note informed the German government that these actions were intolerable. ”The Government of the United States, therefore, desires to call the attention of the Imperial German Government with the utmost earnestness to the fact that the objection to their present method of attack against the trade of their enemies lies in the practical impossibility of employing submarines in the destruction of commerce without disregarding those rules of fairness, reason, justice, and humanity, which all modern opinion regards as imperative.... " (Bryan).

In this note, the President lists a number of such attacks. The letter mentions an attack on the British passenger steamer Falaba on March 28. On the Falaba one American was killed, Leon C. Thrasher. Another such attack on April 28, was aimed on the American vessel Cushing by a German airplane. Two or more Americans were killed in the torpedoing of the American vessel Gulflight on May 1 (Bryan).

Finally, the torpedoing and sinking of the steamship Lusitania was listed. The president stated that all of these attacks constitute the protest of Germany by the United States. The sinking of the Lusitania caused the greatest distress because of the magnitude of the incident. Over one thousand people were killed, one hundred twenty-eight were Americans (Bryan).

At the end of the document, the president states that ships sunk by mistake are still not an excuse for what the Germans were doing. “Expressions of regret and offers of reparation in case of the destruction of neutral ships sunk by mistake, while they may satisfy international obligations, if no loss of life results, cannot justify or excuse a practice, the natural and necessary effect of which is to subject neutral nations and neutral persons to new and immeasurable risks.” (Bryan).

Germany tried to find ways to defend itself against these attacks and protests. Germany claimed that the Lusitania was armed and that it was carrying munitions for the war against Germany. The British denied the claims. Although, the Lusitania was not armed, it was carrying munitions for the destruction of German soldiers. It was not until many years later that it was discovered in secret British documents that the Lusitania was carrying munitions (RMS Lusitania).

In my personal opinion, Britain was jealous of the U-boat. They were using Americans as human shields for their munitions. If the whole truth had come out about munitions being on board, the Untied States may have sided with the Germans. Also, if the British had developed a submarine, they might have been more inclined to allow the unrestricted submarine warfare to continue without hiding munitions on passenger liners. It is unclear to me if what the Germans were doing was a wise move in war, if the munitions were allowed through the British would have the advantage. But targeting passenger liners is unethical and what is more important to the Germans, very unpopular especially with neutral countries such as the United States thus causing the United States to enter the war.

In Conclusion, the Lusitania incident was not an isolated incident, but was the final blow that made the United States snap. The British may have helped public opinion in the States to make the Germans seem more treacherous that they truly were. If not the Lusitania, there would have been some other occurrence that would cause the United States to enter the war. But since history cannot be changed the fact remains that the sinking of the RMS Lusitania was the reason the United States entered the war on the Allies side.

Works Cited
Bryan, William Jennings. "American Protest Over the Sinking of the Lusitania"
<http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bryan2.htm> downloaded 15 July 2001.
Compton-Hall, Richard. “Submarines and the War at Sea” London: Macmillan, 1991.
”RMS Lusitania” <http://members.home.net/vincebjs/Lusitania/lusi.html> downloaded
15 July 2001.
 
Well I'll concede one thing to you Atilla, I always thought the Lusitania was an American ship :eek:.

You learn something every day :smart:


dd
 
Well I'll concede one thing to you Atilla, I always thought the Lusitania was an American ship :eek:.

You learn something every day :smart:


dd


The three identical ships Titanic, Britania and Lusitania all had tragic endings.

I'd recommend a visit to Greenwich Maritime museum which we have visited number of times. Makes for a very nice day out.
 
God help this planet if the US actually vote for 4 more years of Bushs legacy, and should the 71 year old McCain who has a history with the most malignant skin cancer out there should die, making Palin the next PotUS:

The National Review is a staunch Republican spokespiece, and their conclusion is that Palin should resign for personal reasons, as she is out of her league.

Indeed !

YouTube - Palin Katie Couric Interview

YouTube - CBS Sarah Palin interview

"Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.

NATIONALREVIEW

By Kathleen Parker

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.
Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country."


LINK:
Palin Problem by Kathleen Parker on National Review Online
 
Last edited:
The National Review is a staunch Republican spokespiece, and their conclusion is that Palin should resign for personal reasons, as she is out of her league.

Aren't all Americans out of their league ?

Monkey Bush certainly is and the Daddy Ape was too.
 
God help this planet if the US actually vote for 4 more years of Bushs legacy, and should the 71 year old McCain who has a history with the most malignant skin cancer out there should die, making Palin the next PotUS:

The National Review is a staunch Republican spokespiece, and their conclusion is that Palin should resign for personal reasons, as she is out of her league.

Indeed !

YouTube - Palin Katie Couric Interview

YouTube - CBS Sarah Palin interview

"Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.

NATIONALREVIEW

By Kathleen Parker

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.
Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country."


LINK:
Palin Problem by Kathleen Parker on National Review Online


Guys, she has lost the flow in her speech.

She has been instructed to project US interests to every other country in the World. Scripted, chisselled and lectured. Only matter of time before she breaks out of that mould and her mask drops.

You might be able to put lipstick on a pig, but you can't teach an old dog knew tricks.

I'm almost thinking it might be fun to have a as Presidentess :cool: Yeah I know I should see a shrink too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSD
Presidentess eh, haha, nice one mate.

:)

Now, even George Bushs ex-speechwriter - another stauch Republican - has seen the light and says she's not up to it:


"Concerns About Palin’s Readiness as Big Test Nears

nytlogo153x23.gif


A month after Gov. Sarah Palin joined Senator John McCain’s ticket to a burst of excitement and anticipation among Republicans, she heads into a critical debate facing challenges from conservatives about her credentials, signs that her popularity is slipping and evidence that Republicans are worried about how much help she will be for Mr. McCain in November.

Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, flew to Mr. McCain’s ranch in Sedona, Ariz., on Monday for three days of preparation with a team of his aides — a sharp contrast to the less structured preparation that led up to the senator’s first debate.

The amount of time and staff power being devoted to this was evidence of concern among Mr. McCain’s associates that Ms. Palin’s early triumphs — a well-received convention speech, her drawing of big crowds — have been overtaken by a series of setbacks, creating higher stakes for her in the debate Thursday with the Democratic nominee for vice president, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.

“I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States,” David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush who is now a conservative columnist, said in an interview. “If she doesn’t perform well, then people see it.

“And this is a moment of real high anxiety, a little bit like 9/11, when people look to Washington for comfort and leadership and want to know that people in charge know what they are doing.”

Ms. Palin, of Alaska, continues to draw large crowds, is helping Mr. McCain with fund-raising and drawing volunteers, and is drumming up support among base Republican voters who were once skeptical of his candidacy, party leaders said in interviews. Yet these rough two weeks have led some Republicans to reconsider their initial assessment that she would sharply increase Mr. McCain’s appeal among women and independent voters.

Her halting interview with Katie Couric on CBS News alarmed many Republicans and gave fodder for a devastating parody on Saturday Night Live..."


CONTINUED:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/u...&sq=david frum&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Saturday Night Live Parody:

Saturday Night Live - Couric / Palin Open - Video - NBC.com
 
Top