Why can't they just answer the question... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

miasma -> Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 9:35:38 AM)

In the words of my friend,

"Absolutely amazing. They are asked a specific question, and they just change the subject and give a completely unrelated answer. Are voters too stupid to see this?"

Nevermind the first time their strategy failed, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2qDI), but again with her and McCain and the side-stepping and subject changing.

Q: Well, you say you're sure that she has the experience, but again, I'm just asking for an example. What experience does she have in the field of national security?

McCAIN: Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America... And we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFWnxFiFNh4

GIBSON: When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?*

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.

Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

When are we going to get non-spin, straight up answers? The debates?

*And the answer to that is certainly a resounding no. [8|]



rhippie -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 9:46:04 AM)

We'll get a good =, straight answer form McCain/Palin when we get the a good, straight answer from Obama/Biden (I'm not holding my breath for either one of them to do so btw)



miasma -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 9:48:19 AM)

It doesn't even have to be a "answer," just one that applies directly to the question asked.



Jhud -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 9:51:42 AM)

Actually, I am not so sure the question is all that specific - isn't energy independence a national security issue? And what amongst governors and senators would better apply?



ManimalX -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 9:56:59 AM)

I think she answered the question fine. As Jack pointed out, energy is a huge national security issue. Just because she didn't answer the way you expected her to by rattling off a bunch of foreign nations and their leaders and then following up with a dissertation on Sun Tzu's Art of War doesn't mean she didn't answer the question.



rcjames -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 11:16:01 AM)

Poor Ms. Palin; she gets dissed on this thread for percieved non-answer while she is getting dissed on another thread for speaking truthfully about the NATO agreements.

Darned if you do, and darned if you don't, I guess to the tree hugging pinko libs she is just darned.

Thanks
RC



P31W -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 11:20:26 AM)

quote:

I think she answered the question fine. As Jack pointed out, energy is a huge national security issue.


I don't think a lot of people realize this. That is why we need an energy expert like Palin in the white house.



adelphi_sky -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 11:30:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: P31W

quote:

I think she answered the question fine. As Jack pointed out, energy is a huge national security issue.


I don't think a lot of people realize this. That is why we need an energy expert like Palin in the white house.



What makes her an energy expert?



P31W -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 11:40:13 AM)

She was the chair for the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission.

Alaska is one of the few perto states in America. It's big business there. Part of her being governor required that she know her energy.



davemiller7 -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 1:22:34 PM)

She would really have gotten clobbered if she had quoted something from "The Art Of War." That wouldn't have been nicey nice politically correct stuff.

-Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManimalX

I think she answered the question fine. As Jack pointed out, energy is a huge national security issue. Just because she didn't answer the way you expected her to by rattling off a bunch of foreign nations and their leaders and then following up with a dissertation on Sun Tzu's Art of War doesn't mean she didn't answer the question.



TMeeks -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 3:13:40 PM)

This post definitely shows some ignorance on the issue of security. But, it's NOT from Palin. It's from Charlie Gibson.

Energy IS security. In fact, it is at the heart of THE BIGGEST SECURITY THREAT WE FACE TODAY.

Remember, Japan attacked us over the very issue of energy in WWII. They had no self-sufficient oil reserves and were afraid their external oil supply would be cut off. They saw it as a threat to their security.

Relying on our enemies to supply our oil is strategic suicide. The plastic of the computer with which you wrote your post could not exist without oil. The cereal many people sat down to this morning would not be on their table without oil.

The issue Gibson brought up about Georgia was DIRECTLY related to energy isues. It's called a PIPELINE.

If we don't want to end up having to go out into the fields and forage for berries, then we'd better understand that not drilling isn't just about higher prices at the pump. It's a survival issue and a huge national security risk.

Score 1 for Palin and 0 for Gibson.

quote:

ORIGINAL: miasma

In the words of my friend,

"Absolutely amazing. They are asked a specific question, and they just change the subject and give a completely unrelated answer. Are voters too stupid to see this?"

Nevermind the first time their strategy failed, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2qDI), but again with her and McCain and the side-stepping and subject changing.

Q: Well, you say you're sure that she has the experience, but again, I'm just asking for an example. What experience does she have in the field of national security?

McCAIN: Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America... And we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFWnxFiFNh4

GIBSON: When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?*

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.

Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

When are we going to get non-spin, straight up answers? The debates?

*And the answer to that is certainly a resounding no. [8|]



inthysite -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 7:51:11 PM)

Maybe the libs would be happier if the conversation went a little more like this:

GIBSON: When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?*

PALIN:Do you think these shoes go with this skirt Charlie? Hey that's funny, I knew someone name Charlie in high school. He was so cute. He was captain of the high school football team. His name was Charlie Connors. Do you know him? I mean you both have the same first name so maybe you know him. Did I mention he was on the football team?



Rufas2000 -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 8:20:09 PM)

quote:

Maybe the libs would be happier if the conversation went a little more like this:


LOL, I'm sure they would. Any political opponent would be happy with a response like you detailed.

As far as the OP, politicians duck questions all the time let's not kid ourselves. But the post gives a specific example and the question is whether the example is legitimate or not. I agree with my fellow posters that being able to become more self sufficient energy wise would be a huge boost for our security as OPEC nations couldn't extort us. However, they had to know that Gibson was fishing for something else. Perhaps he should have asked what she knew about foreign policy, I think her knowledge of foreign affairs is what he was really after (and they knew it). Maybe they would have answered it, maybe they would have ducked it. So sorry Charlie, ask the question the way you want it answered.

BTW: I'm just going based on the information presented, I didn't see the interview.

Besides, she has a couple of months at an absolute minimum to learn about foreign affairs. Its not what you know but how you use it that counts anyway. Questioning her about it is legit as its important to know her starting point but she can learn and she'll be learning under John McCain, a man who knows his foreign affairs and national security. All of this (both the good and the bad) applies to Obama as well (Biden will probably be his teacher but its a little different when the assistant is teaching the boss). Except it is certain Obama will be president if his ticket is elected.

It is possible that McCain will make it through his term you know.



TMeeks -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 8:45:14 PM)

First, it really doesn't matter what a reporter is fishing for. That's their problem, not Palin's.

The press is sinking faster than Obama's campaign. The problem, as I have repeatedly said, is that so many leftist have been hired into new organizations that their all completely inbred now. They really think that they are middle of the road... when in reality the whole broadcast media bus has been veering into the ditch for some time and they have finally run completely off the road. That's why they are losing credibility, money and trust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

quote:

Maybe the libs would be happier if the conversation went a little more like this:


LOL, I'm sure they would. Any political opponent would be happy with a response like you detailed.

As far as the OP, politicians duck questions all the time let's not kid ourselves. But the post gives a specific example and the question is whether the example is legitimate or not. I agree with my fellow posters that being able to become more self sufficient energy wise would be a huge boost for our security as OPEC nations couldn't extort us. However, they had to know that Gibson was fishing for something else. Perhaps he should have asked what she knew about foreign policy, I think her knowledge of foreign affairs is what he was really after (and they knew it). Maybe they would have answered it, maybe they would have ducked it. So sorry Charlie, ask the question the way you want it answered.

BTW: I'm just going based on the information presented, I didn't see the interview.

Besides, she has a couple of months at an absolute minimum to learn about foreign affairs. Its not what you know but how you use it that counts anyway. Questioning her about it is legit as its important to know her starting point but she can learn and she'll be learning under John McCain, a man who knows his foreign affairs and national security. All of this (both the good and the bad) applies to Obama as well (Biden will probably be his teacher but its a little different when the assistant is teaching the boss). Except it is certain Obama will be president if his ticket is elected.

It is possible that McCain will make it through his term you know.



Rockwall -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/12/2008 9:58:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: miasma Why can't they just answer the question...

When are we going to get non-spin, straight up answers? The debates?

*And the answer to that is certainly a resounding no. [8|]


Great question! Obama duck LINK

quote:

Rick Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights IN YOUR VIEW?"

Barack Hussein: I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He added that he supports the landmark decision Roe vs. Wade but said the issue has "moral and ethical content" and stressed his commitment to reducing the number of abortions."


Now how come he didn't answer the question instead of ducking it? He is Harvard and Columbia educated so he's not stupid. But if he doesn't know when a baby get's HUMAN RIGHTS, then why doesn't he err on the side of caution? He could have tried to protect the babies instead of voting against partial birth abortion and against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/13/2008 12:25:43 AM)

quote:

First, it really doesn't matter what a reporter is fishing for. That's their problem, not Palin's.


My original quote:

quote:

However, they had to know that Gibson was fishing for something else. Perhaps he should have asked what she knew about foreign policy, I think her knowledge of foreign affairs is what he was really after (and they knew it). Maybe they would have answered it, maybe they would have ducked it. So sorry Charlie, ask the question the way you want it answered.


So we agree on this because I said the exact same thing ... right?



Rufas2000 -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/13/2008 12:33:58 AM)

quote:

Barack Hussein


Sorry but when you start with that it kinda makes any anti Obama point you might be making moot. His middle name is a non issue period but it is a handy way to back slap him without having to really say what you're implying (the "m" word, of which there is little real evidence). So when it gets called out you can shrug your shoulders and say its just his middle name.

If anyone insists on doing that at least be clever enough to use John Sidney McCain (or in this case John Sidney) so that they can say "I always use people's middle names". I'll know its probably untruthful but I won't call anyone on it.



ljmac -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/13/2008 12:48:26 AM)

BHO: "Our enemies are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America. And if we don't take this threat as seriously as the bombs they build or the guns they buy, we will be fighting the War on Terror for a long long time."



Rockwall -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/13/2008 9:52:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

quote:

Barack Hussein


Sorry but when you start with that it kinda makes any anti Obama point you might be making moot. His middle name is a non issue period but it is a handy way to back slap him without having to really say what you're implying (the "m" word, of which there is little real evidence). So when it gets called out you can shrug your shoulders and say its just his middle name.

If anyone insists on doing that at least be clever enough to use John Sidney McCain (or in this case John Sidney) so that they can say "I always use people's middle names". I'll know its probably untruthful but I won't call anyone on it.


That is a nice deflection and I understand why you are scared of the point I made. You focused on "Barack Hussein" because you know there is no excuse for allowing someone to jam scissors into the back of a baby's skull and sucking his or her brains out.

If the abomination, I'm sorry I meant Obamanation, believes that using his middle name helps take the focus off infanticide, then that is pretty scary in my opinion. Didn't we say after the Holocaust that we will never let genocide happen again? Well there is a legal genocide happening here among the most defenseless here in America yet many want to ignore it.. some simply for using the middle name of the man running for president.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/13/2008 11:06:11 AM)

quote:

That is a nice deflection and I understand why you are scared of the point I made. You focused on "Barack Hussein" because you know there is no excuse for allowing someone to jam scissors into the back of a baby's skull and sucking his or her brains out.

If the abomination, I'm sorry I meant Obamanation, believes that using his middle name helps take the focus off infanticide, then that is pretty scary in my opinion. Didn't we say after the Holocaust that we will never let genocide happen again? Well there is a legal genocide happening here among the most defenseless here in America yet many want to ignore it.. some simply for using the middle name of the man running for president.


Try reading my post history, I'm as much against abortion as anyone. I'm not trying to deflect anything and I'm not an Obama supporter as I cannot support anyone who supports abortion, especially partial birth abortion. I do support the truth and civility in political discourse. Technically you speak truth as it is his middle name but the implication that he is a Muslim lacks credible evidence. If you feel he is something worse than a Muslim that still doesn't justify implying he is something he says he is not and where there is no evidence to the contrary. And of course it is uncivil. I know, murdering millions of babies is uncivil. Actually its worse but that doesn't mean it justifies cheap shots. The truth should be enough.

You might also get a hint from many of your fellow posters who are very vocal on the abortion issue. They really don't like Obama but they don't do the Hussein thing. There is a reason for that. They take the abortion issue seriously enough to resist the temptation to indulge in cheap shots. They know their credibility is an important part of getting their message out.

If you can't see how inferring a lie detracts from the important point you say you're trying to make then I can't help you. Some of us can concurrently hold the views that Obama is wrong for America and that he should be treated fairly in the public discourse.



rhippie -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/13/2008 12:11:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rockwall

quote:

Rick Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights IN YOUR VIEW?"

Barack Hussein: I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He added that he supports the landmark decision Roe vs. Wade but said the issue has "moral and ethical content" and stressed his commitment to reducing the number of abortions."


Now how come he didn't answer the question instead of ducking it? He is Harvard and Columbia educated so he's not stupid. But if he doesn't know when a baby get's HUMAN RIGHTS, then why doesn't he err on the side of caution? He could have tried to protect the babies instead of voting against partial birth abortion and against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.


The problem as I see it is that no one that wants abortion to continue unfettered is willing to say when life begins because once they do so they have to admit that they are willing to commit murder. It would be very simple for Obama to say something like "I believe life begins at conception (or when the heart starts beating or at viability or any of a number of points including birth)" but instead he chooses not to be held accountable for the infanticide he so blatantly supports.



Rockwall -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/13/2008 1:12:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

Try reading my post history, I'm as much against abortion as anyone. I'm not trying to deflect anything and I'm not an Obama supporter as I cannot support anyone who supports abortion, especially partial birth abortion. I do support the truth and civility in political discourse. Technically you speak truth as it is his middle name but the implication that he is a Muslim lacks credible evidence. If you feel he is something worse than a Muslim that still doesn't justify implying he is something he says he is not and where there is no evidence to the contrary. And of course it is uncivil. I know, murdering millions of babies is uncivil. Actually its worse but that doesn't mean it justifies cheap shots. The truth should be enough.

Hussein is the name that his mother gave him and if you or others are ashamed of it, it's is not my fault. I never implied he was Muslim and if that name makes you think of Muslims, I can't do anything about that either. I never even said he was worse than a Muslim either and for you to get all of that out of a single line "Barack Hussein" is quite a stretch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
You might also get a hint from many of your fellow posters who are very vocal on the abortion issue. They really don't like Obama but they don't do the Hussein thing. There is a reason for that. They take the abortion issue seriously enough to resist the temptation to indulge in cheap shots. They know their credibility is an important part of getting their message out.


Despite what someone says or how eloquent someone writes, the percentage of posters who change their pro-choice stance because of what they read on a forum is minute. If one can say "I am a Christian and I am pro-choice", your writings will be all for naught.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
If you can't see how inferring a lie detracts from the important point you say you're trying to make then I can't help you. Some of us can concurrently hold the views that Obama is wrong for America and that he should be treated fairly in the public discourse.


Calm down sir, please calm down. Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim. There it is in black and white. Can we move forward or are we still going to be stuck on the name thingy?

As for treating Barack "fairly", well that is a relative term and what I think is fair and what others think is fair is subjective.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Why can't they just answer the question... (9/13/2008 2:15:25 PM)

Fine just answer this: why did you refer to him as Barack Hussein? You didn't refer to Rick Warren as Rick D (I couldn't find his middle name except for 'D" so you would have used Rick D). Do you refer to John McCain as John Sidney?

quote:

Can we move forward or are we still going to be stuck on the name thingy?


We could have moved forward. I never would have responded the second time had you not misrepresented my position on abortion.

I'm redoing my post from this point forward because it was overly aggressive and I apologize. Let me explain where I'm coming from. We all know that different people have different gifts. One of my gifts might be described as fairness, balance or more to the point analytical detachment. I'm fun to watch football with because I'll get just as perturbed at a bad call that goes for my team as one that goes against. So I look at a situation and if I see an unbalance or a bias I naturally react. I feel it is part of "my job" to show that a Conservative Evangelical Christian is not out to "get Obama" or other liberals. I do feel we have more integrity if we give credit where its due.

My gift is not the only one and requires a counter balance. More than my "gift of balance" we as Christians need people with the gift of fervor. There are several posters here who have that. I don't mean to say they are unfair but rather that their job is to aggressively advocate their position so once they know who's who they are going to pick a side and stick with it. I can't do what they do period. I think we can all figure out who they are.

Honestly sometimes they post things that cause me to say "that was rough". But then I remember the truth is rough. They convict me of the need to call sin what it is, sin. They remind me of the stakes in this election. They believe and are unashamed of the fervor of their beliefs, they hold nothing back and if anyone doesn't like it oh well. Occasionally in their fervor I feel they go further than the facts will allow. So I chirp in and say "well, not quite". Their gifts are probably more important than mine but I feel mine are important also. Just like Paul says about the body.

So this is the last time I'll do the name thing. If there was no malicious intent on your part Rockwall I apologize. I've made the point, I feel it is unnecessary because of how it has been used by some. Now that I'm on the record several times the issue for me is closed, I feel I've made the point I should make.

Sorry for the OT.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI