The Palin Doctrine :)

[bikerdruid]

Rule 1 of the Palin Doctrine: You don´t explain about the Palin Doctrine.

cool.....the palin doctrine is just like 'fight club'...

 

[Chaos]

cool.....the palin doctrine is just like 'fight club'...

*sigh*

Rule -1: Don´t explain the damn joke.

 

[varwoche]

The Palin Doctrine in action:

NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. link

I think there's a lot of confusion as it pertains to our foreign policy in Libya right now, and that's a frustrating thing for Americans, certainly frustrating thing for our troops. Our troops deserve better.

Susteren: Is it a failure on our part if we turn over command and control to someone else, to NATO or to France or whatever, and Qaddafi is still in power? Is that a failure on our part?
Palin: America will have failed.

link

 

[mhaze]

Nothing complicated. People read the article about the "Palin Doctrine," and laughed because the article didn't describe what it is and there doesn't appear to be any such thing. Won't you laugh too?

Already covered this in post #7.

The Palin Doctrine in action:

I'm having trouble seeing any problem with those two statements. You've presented them as if they didn't jive with each other, is that it?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The thing is, The Palin Doctrine is quite simple at the core. (Like Palin!) It can be summed up in one little sentence fragment: whatever Obama isn't doing.

You betcha.

 

[hgc]

Already covered this in post #7.

Got it. a) More support for freedom fighters. b) Use a no-fly zone to protect civilians.

Quite a doctrine you got there. I'm still laughing that such commonalities have been cobbled together into a "doctrine" by a Chalabi-loving fantasist trying desperately to make Palin relevant with regard to the policy question du jour.

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

palin is a bozo.

Them's fightin' words.

 

[mhaze]

So you tell people that their interpretation is wrong, but won't give your own? And you say, I'm ducking and dodging?

What makes you think I, or the other people struggling with the actual doctrine, haven't read the article?

You've not defined it in the first place, so there isn't any 'redefining' or 'over defining' requested. The 'side with freedom fighters' is just too stupid to be a doctrine.

Ahh...you see unlike some of the people in this thread I'm not engaged in MAKING THINGS UP.



So the Palin Doctrine is whatever the Palin Doctrine is defined as (or not) in the original source, thence as modified and enhanced over time.

The 'side with freedom fighters' is just too stupid to be a doctrine.
​

Okay, that is your opinion. A lot of people would strongly disagree with you, wouldn't they? You've just said siding with freedom fighters is stupid. I'm not even going to discuss that...

I guess that you could get somewhere by strictly defining "doctrine" so as to exclude Palin's comments from inclusion. Like for example alleging that "doctrine" cannot be anything less than a 751 page pdf. But gee....That would exclude the Bush Doctrine from being a doctrine also...

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/12/which-bush-doctrine-did-you-mean-charlie/

​

In that case, the jeering from the left on Palin's answer on this matter is unsupported by the facts, but since it furthered the propaganda being pushed, facts didn't matter.


Do the facts matter on this issue, Tyr? I don't think they do with respect to the intent of the posters from the left, and in my opinion this thread represents just a liberal smearbash, so I thought I'd point a few things out.


That's my opinion.

 

[mhaze]

Got it. a) More support for freedom fighters. b) Use a no-fly zone to protect civilians.

Quite a doctrine you got there. I'm still laughing that such commonalities have been cobbled together into a "doctrine" by a Chalabi-loving fantasist trying desperately to make Palin relevant with regard to the policy question du jour.

Yes, this is Saul Alinsky tactic #5 "ridicule your opponent".

As you wish. But now you've seen the facts that were right under your nose all the time, haven't you? Next time try putting your smart hat on before using #5, okay?

 

[tyr_13]

Ahh...you see unlike some of the people in this thread I'm not engaged in MAKING THINGS UP.


So the Palin Doctrine is whatever the Palin Doctrine is defined as (or not) in the original source, thence as modified and enhanced over time.

The 'side with freedom fighters' is just too stupid to be a doctrine.
​

Okay, that is your opinion. A lot of people would strongly disagree with you, wouldn't they? You've just said siding with freedom fighters is stupid. I'm not even going to discuss that...

I guess that you could get somewhere by strictly defining "doctrine" so as to exclude Palin's comments from inclusion. Like for example alleging that "doctrine" cannot be anything less than a 751 page pdf. But gee....That would exclude the Bush Doctrine from being a doctrine also...

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/12/which-bush-doctrine-did-you-mean-charlie/

​

In that case, the jeering from the left on Palin's answer on this matter is unsupported by the facts, but since it furthered the propaganda being pushed, facts didn't matter.

Do the facts matter on this issue, Tyr? I don't think they do with respect to the intent of the posters from the left, and in my opinion this thread represents just a liberal smearbash, so I thought I'd point a few things out.


That's my opinion.

You said you weren't making things up, and then you make stuff up. Shocking.

 

[Biscuit]

I have an even better idea. Why don't you actually read the article which I pointed out was misrepresented in the CNN link by Tricky. You know, the source of the phrase "Palin doctrine"?

Then we can discuss things better, right? Because I don't have much of an agenda here, I only pointed out the misrepesentation, the lying, the typical spin and so forth.

Wait...no, don't bother because the thread is really just another Palin bashing thingie, isn't it?

Ok. Having read the article I can sum up the Palin Doctrine as follows

1. America goes alone around the world acting instantly and independently

2. Use America's natural resource to prevent US money going to the middle east for fuel

3. Support Israel

That is as deep as the article got. Is this "doctrine" laid out anywhere else? Perhaps in Palin's own words?

My retort to the 3 phase doctrine is as follows

1. It is far better to act on facts and not emotion. Forming a coalition and getting NATO and UN support provides a legal basis and partnership to handle the Libyan problem. Had the US gone it alone we would have been responsible for everything including the entire rebuilding. This is not an acceptable option given our current commitments.

2. The US has about 2% of the worlds resources in terms of fuel (IIRC). Clearly using this up is not a long term solution. Renewable and sustainable technologies are.

3. Israel is honestly the least of our worries right now. We need to be working towards peace not throwing support behind one side only.

 

[varwoche]

Yes, this is Saul Alinsky tactic #5 "ridicule your opponent".

Funny, just the other day I finally saw Saul Alinsky's name mentioned by someone other than you. I think it was in one of David Horowitz's maniacal rants.

In any case, bring it on I say! Especially if these Alinsky tactics enhance the experience of mocking one of the biggest buffoons to ever step onto the national stage.

Maybe we should hold the Alinsky tactics in reserve though. I mean really, contemplate her u-turn at the border crossing on the way to Bethlehem. It's not like Palin detractors are in need of sophisticated tactics.

 

[I Am The Scum]

1. It is far better to act on facts and not emotion. Forming a coalition and getting NATO and UN support provides a legal basis and partnership to handle the Libyan problem. Had the US gone it alone we would have been responsible for everything including the entire rebuilding. This is not an acceptable option given our current commitments.

2. The US has about 2% of the worlds resources in terms of fuel (IIRC). Clearly using this up is not a long term solution. Renewable and sustainable technologies are.

3. Israel is honestly the least of our worries right now. We need to be working towards peace not throwing support behind one side only.

This shall hence-forth be known as... the Biscuit Doctrine.

 

[BenBurch]

Funny, just the other day I finally saw Saul Alinsky's name mentioned by someone other than you. I think it was in one of David Horowitz's maniacal rants.

In any case, bring it on I say! Especially if these Alinsky tactics enhance the experience of mocking one of the biggest buffoons to ever step onto the national stage.

Maybe we should hold the Alinsky tactics in reserve though. I mean really, contemplate her u-turn at the border crossing on the way to Bethlehem. It's not like Palin detractors are in need of sophisticated tactics.

Maybe I need to read this Alinsky guy finally? Seems like the Teabaggers are using his tactics and you have to understand the Terrorists if you ever want to defeat them.

 

[hgc]

Yes, this is Saul Alinsky tactic #5 "ridicule your opponent".

As you wish. But now you've seen the facts that were right under your nose all the time, haven't you? Next time try putting your smart hat on before using #5, okay?

I'd like to see the entire list of tactics attributed to this Alinsky fellow, so that I could put them all into consistent practice. I have to admit, though, ridiculing your opponent is so friggin' basic and common that it's hard to justify credit to Mr. Alinsky. The Alinsky Doctine, anyone?

The point is that the article is ripe for ridicule, and that's not a "tactic." It's just the inevitable reaction. What else can one do? The idea of a "Palin Doctrine" is laughably absurd, given that she has presented nothing cogent, original or different from the prevailing ideas from across much of the political spectrum.

 

[Biscuit]

This shall hence-forth be known as... the Biscuit Doctrine.

I think I will re-work it into a manifesto. Does pages have a template for manifesto writing?

 

[NotJesus]

I'd like to see the entire list of tactics attributed to this Alinsky fellow, so that I could put them all into consistent practice. I have to admit, though, ridiculing your opponent is so friggin' basic and common that it's hard to justify credit to Mr. Alinsky. The Alinsky Doctine, anyone?

The point is that the article is ripe for ridicule, and that's not a "tactic." It's just the inevitable reaction. What else can one do? The idea of a "Palin Doctrine" is laughably absurd, given that she has presented nothing cogent, original or different from the prevailing ideas from across much of the political spectrum.

Pssst. Dude, you forgot to put on the smart hat.

Here -- I made you one out of newspaper:

 

[SkepticalDrew]

Wasn't Sarah Palin the one who didn't know what the Bush doctrine was. Just sayin'

 

[mhaze]

Wasn't Sarah Palin the one who didn't know what the Bush doctrine was. Just sayin'

Actually, no...that was a propaganda lie propagated for political reasons. See post 68, the reference link in small print for an explanation of the various things that have been dubbed the "Bush Doctrine".

Also, the fools of the forums may be interested in that similar multiple definitions of "Palin Doctrine" exist, some dating back to 2008. So the Sun article referenced as the subject of this thread WAS NOT the original use of the term.

 

[hgc]

Also, the fools of the forums may be interested in that similar multiple definitions of "Palin Doctrine" exist, some dating back to 2008. So the Sun article referenced as the subject of this thread WAS NOT the original use of the term.

So this idiocy has a long pedigree. How delightful.