• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Palin Doctrine :)

mhaze said:
Also, the fools of the forums may be interested in that similar multiple definitions of "Palin Doctrine" exist, some dating back to 2008. .
Click to expand...

it appears that you are convinced of the reality of 'the palin doctrine'.
perhaps, rather than calling us fools for not understanding it, you will help us out.
you have been defending the 'doctrine's'existence, surely you must know something of it.

what are the tenets of the palin doctrine?
please educate us.
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
it appears that you are convinced of the reality of 'the palin doctrine'.
perhaps, rather than calling us fools for not understanding it, you will help us out.
you have been defending the 'doctrine's'existence, surely you must know something of it.

what are the tenets of the palin doctrine?
please educate us.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to reply to your question, since you address some comments which I placed to the "fools of the forum". I do not include you in that group, however if you wish to voluntarily join it, I would caution against it.

Why? Google is not your friend on this, and your agenda will not be furthered by this.

"Palin doctrine" was 83,000 hits on Google middle of last week, now is >200,000. "bush doctrine" is in the 400,000 range, and "obama doctrine" some 300,000. Given the trendline, "Palin doctrine" will shortly surpass both the others.

You fight not me, but reality of linguistics, grammar, and figures of speech.

Just pointing out the obvious
 
NotJesus said:
Pssst. Dude, you forgot to put on the smart hat.

Here -- I made you one out of newspaper:

47534d8ce1a02c01d.jpg
Click to expand...
I like the way it leans to the left, is misspelled, and is probably produced at high cost at NPR.

This is the version for The Elites, right?
 
mhaze said:
Actually, no...that was a propaganda lie propagated for political reasons.
Click to expand...

No, it really happened. She had no idea what was meant by the question, and instead of asking for clarification, she went for the bluff.
 
Piggy said:
No, it really happened. She had no idea what was meant by the question, and instead of asking for clarification, she went for the bluff.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate mhaze's ability to deny facts. You can link him to the actual interview and he'll say it didn't happen.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Don't underestimate mhaze's ability to deny facts. You can link him to the actual interview and he'll say it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
You mean that interview that I quoted the relevant section of previously?

Get a smart hat.

:)

Piggy said:
No, it really happened. She had no idea what was meant by the question, and instead of asking for clarification, she went for the bluff.
Click to expand...

Already responded to in #70 (see the small print and the link), but then I've already called you out for MAKING THINGS UP.

Doing it again? It's fun, right? I hope so...but....

Wikipedia is not your friend, Piggy. It lists several distinct and unrelated items that have been called "The Bush Doctrine". But that doesn't jive with your intents, goals and purposes, so those facts have to be disregarded.

That's why I used the phrase "fools of the forum" earlier.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
...
Wikipedia is not your friend, Piggy. It lists several distinct and unrelated items that have been called "The Bush Doctrine". But that doesn't jive with your intents, goals and purposes, so those facts have to be disregarded.

That's why I used the phrase "fools of the forum" earlier.
Click to expand...


Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His world view.

Is "his world view" listed among those examples of what were referred to as the Bush Doctrine?

Playing with Palin apologists is fun.
 
mhaze said:
I hesitate to reply to your question, since you address some comments which I placed to the "fools of the forum". I do not include you in that group, however if you wish to voluntarily join it, I would caution against it.

Why? Google is not your friend on this, and your agenda will not be furthered by this.

"Palin doctrine" was 83,000 hits on Google middle of last week, now is >200,000. "bush doctrine" is in the 400,000 range, and "obama doctrine" some 300,000. Given the trendline, "Palin doctrine" will shortly surpass both the others.

You fight not me, but reality of linguistics, grammar, and figures of speech.

Just pointing out the obvious
Click to expand...

Darn! I though that link would be to the mysterious "palin doctrine" No such luck!

Doing your google search sure does return a lot of hits, if only that were a measure of actual content. Most of the top 10 are derisive of such a doctrine or similar to the link that started this thread and not one is a link to a Sarah Palin written document.

my favorite version of the Palin doctrine

When you google "bush doctrine" you get a lot of helpful links that actually describe a doctrine! Same thing with "obama doctrine".

Palin Doctrine may soon surpass the other two in terms of returns on google search but I think it will be quite some time before it it surpasses either in terms of content.
 
mhaze said:
It lists several distinct and unrelated items that have been called "The Bush Doctrine".
Click to expand...

Like I said, Palin didn't know what was meant, and rather than asking for clarification, she chose to bluff.

If she had said, "What exactly do you mean by that? There's more than one possible referent there.", then she would have appeared informed.

But she didn't.
 
hgc said:
Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His world view?
Click to expand...

Don't leave out the next line:

Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

Again, she could have -- and should have -- put more pressure on CG to be clear about what he was talking about, which he did later in the interview after her typically unfocused response:

"The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense; we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

Palin should have gotten that out of him before attempting to answer, but I think she was afraid that pressing the point would make her appear ignorant, ironically enough.
 
Piggy said:
Don't leave out the next line:

Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

Again, she could have -- and should have -- put more pressure on CG to be clear about what he was talking about, which he did later in the interview after her typically unfocused response:

"The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense; we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

Palin should have gotten that out of him before attempting to answer, but I think she was afraid that pressing the point would make her appear ignorant, ironically enough.
Click to expand...


It's strange, these self-inflicted wounds. Look at the Katie Couric interview fiasco. All she had to say was "The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, that sort of thing," and it would have been the end of it. But, no...
 
Biscuit said:
.....When you google "bush doctrine" you get a lot of helpful links that actually describe a doctrine! Same thing with "obama doctrine".

Palin Doctrine may soon surpass the other two in terms of returns on google search but I think it will be quite some time before it it surpasses either in terms of content.
Click to expand...
So we have moved from "whether something exists" to "whether something has meaningful content".

By that measure this thread is certainly a FAIL.

Now go back and look at my posts, I have never offered an opinion on the merits of the content of any of these "doctrines". That's a different subject entirely. So you are misdirecting.

Thanks.

Piggy said:
Don't leave out the next line:

Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

Again, she could have -- and should have -- put more pressure on CG to be clear about what he was talking about, which he did later in the interview after her typically unfocused response:

"The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense; we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

Palin should have gotten that out of him before attempting to answer, but I think she was afraid that pressing the point would make her appear ignorant, ironically enough.
Click to expand...

It sounds now like you are trying to discuss the APPEARANCES of Palin in the interview, not the facts. I don't have any interest in your feelings about appearances, whether you think she should have said this or done that, or your opinion about what may have been going on inside her head.

Sorry, none of that matters one bit. You have been caught a couple of times in this thread plain making things up, and now, Piggy, you are trying to focus on the actual facts.

But facts are not the same as your feelings, or your opinions, or your inferences. The facts are there are multiple things labeled "Bush Doctrine", she asked for clarification, he responded, and she responded to that.

Do you still hold that your prior posts in this thread, those which I took exception to, are true? (I've never had any doubt about your FEELINGS on the matter).
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
It's strange, these self-inflicted wounds. Look at the Katie Couric interview fiasco. All she had to say was "The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, that sort of thing," and it would have been the end of it. But, no...
Click to expand...

This is my favorite from the Couric interview:

That’s why I say, I like every American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
Click to expand...

I've previously asked the non-fools of the forum to comment on it. No takers.

Note: Being a liberal smear-artist, I've intentionally omitted Couric's 'gotcha' question.
 
mhaze said:
It sounds now like you are trying to discuss the APPEARANCES of Palin in the interview, not the facts. I don't have any interest in your feelings about appearances, whether you think she should have said this or done that, or your opinion about what may have been going on inside her head.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt she had no clue what Gibson was talking about.

I feel that she would have made a much better impression if she had not attempted to bluff -- as she obviously did -- but instead demanded that the interviewer be clear about what his question was.

I also feel that it was intended as a gotcha question.
 
After browsing around teh interwebs for a while, it seems that the Palinistas are trying to spin the situation like this:

After "dithering" for a long time, Obama eventually came around to Palin's point of view and did what she had publicly advised previously, and it would have been better if he had taken her advice at the time instead of "dithering" for so long.


Of course, the presidential "dithering" undoubtedly involved gathering intelligence (of which there was precious little on the ground), developing scenarios and assessing risks and benefits, taking the pulse of the Arab nations to get a reasonable idea of their potential reactions to various scenarios, attempting to understand who the rebel groups are, and eventually crafting a response that was not a unilateral invasion and which -- so they say -- will put UK, France, and AL in charge of the mission.

Full disclosure: I'm not in favor of the US getting involved in civil wars in Africa, so I'm not a supporter of Obama's strategy here.

From what I can gather, the Palin Doctrine is to provide military support to "freedom fighters" against repressive regimes, and to do so without any special regard for the potential outcomes, or what other stakeholder nations might think or do about it, or who those "freedom fighters" actually are.

This is the same kind of thinking that led to Iran-Contra, and to arming Muslim extremists in Afghanistan.

Of course, it is possible to err in the other direction, as with our support for the Shah, including direct CIA-led intervention in Iran. That has a bad track record, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom