SDS

WTF are you talking about? Someone asks her a hypothetical question and now she "wants to perpetuate a war or start a cold war"??? Again - get a grip. She was answering a hypothetical and your words are just a rearrangement of hers. You said as a "unless there are no other options". In other words, "perhaps". She said "perhaps" as the question specifically referenced the NATO treaty. She was speaking TO THAT TREATY. The question wasn't: Gibson: "What should we do about Russia?" Palin: "Perhaps we go to war with them..." BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm not really sure how this should be played out. McCain's policies are the ones that are important and his VP pick is there to support HIS campaign. She is not there to contradict him. When they may differ on such issues, I'm not really sure how that should be handled by either the VP or the interviewer.

Actually, you have already shown that nothing she has done or said in the past or what she will do or say in the future is good enough for you. Whatever her answer, your "expectations" would have certainly changed to match your politics. Regardless, I said she could have done better and she might have frozen for a moment. Big deal. Afterall, she hasn't been doing this for 2 years and she is drinking from a firehose right now. The question wasn't - "Define the Bush Doctorine". It had to do with serious issues that can NEVER be answered in an interview. Those who can answer that question in a couple of sentences are just feeding well crafted lines that have no bearing on the actual decisions that would be made if events forced them to react.

I'm killing myself for even engaging you in any type of dialog, but why don't you just read the 1st friggin' paragraph of your own link making note of some of the multi-syllable words and phrases like "various", "initially", "later it came to include additional elements", and "some of these policies were codified"... and then tell me you could define exactly what it is off the top of your head. Please.

who would have thought you would have came back and made an ass of yourself? Shocking! Just Shocking! j/k

Thanks... now comes the freefall into 40. God help me. At least I got an iphone out of the deal!

In a campaign, she should have just blown it off and give the standard "it depends", "I would need to know know far more details than can be outlined in an interview". She would have been nailed for dodging the question, but that may have been better tahn to have people twist and contort what she said to fit their agenda.

The Bush Doctrine means many things to many people. If you think you could define it - you give yourself far too much credit. However, was it the best she could have done? Certainly not. Does it really mean anything? Not really.

am I missing something here or did we move to a dictatorship? I'm pretty sure the decisions involved in any kind of conflict with Russia would be more involved than the answer given to a hypothetical question posed by an ABC newsman. Get a grip.

you have to admit, the line seems a bit skewed doesn't it?

if the line is 7, that means Vegas is begging people to take the Bills. Therefore they think Jags in romp.

Seriously?

Everyone has their anecdotal evidence, and I'm no different. Someone very close to my family had three of them. When asked why, she said because she didn't have birth control handy and as far as she was concerned it was just another method. The 4th time she got pregnant, she kept the child because this time "she actually cared for the father". Personally, I think this happens more often than most people think. As for Roe v. Wade. Overturning it does not make it illegal, it just pushes it back to the states. Maryland has already put it in their constitution that abortion will be forever legal. I'm sure most of the northeast would follow suit, if they haven't already. It isn't going to be made illegal across the US, regardless of the fear-mongering on the left. With that said, those on the right would be better served trying to change the hearts and minds of society, than seeking legal redress at this moment in time.

Dude... the guy is over 30 years old. We drafted him 10 freakin' years ago.

Actually, one of the top pollsters just came out with the fact that the "youth vote" intensity has dropped 20 points since April. 20 points. I wouldn't count on that energy being the same come a dark, November Tuesday.

I am? People take longer to burp than it takes me to make those picks....

You are way off base here. Her family has the right to enjoy this moment and share it with her. Their personal issues are just that - personal. It is none of (y)our business. And no - it doesn't work both ways. Gov. Palin has not done anything even remotely inappropriate with respect to her family. If she is benefiting in some small way from her family - so be it. LET IT GO. No one is going to vote for her because she has 5 kids. She is allowed to be proud of her family w/o a bunch of jackasses chiming in about "well, it is all fair game now...". Every person has that right. Obama, Clinton, Bush, Palin, you, me... it doesn't matter. Let them introduce their families and present them as they wish and let it go. It will be ok.

3 QB's on a 14 man roster? Might be excessive. I don't think Witten is going to give you value considering what you could have had. Where people chatting and saying WTF? Usually top tier TE's don't go until R4 or R5 at the earliest.

I think you got some bad advice here. I'm in a 14 team league and it SUCKS. Your team compared to a 10 or even a 12 team league is like comparing Rosie to Jessica Alba. There just aren't that many good players. My advice would be to take a 1 top RB, 1 top WR, and 1 top WR in your 1st 3 rounds. Go for home run hitters and then backfill with the scrubs you'll be left with. Also, because the talent is watered down - you are MUCH better off grabbing top TE's, K, and Defenses earlier than the normal throw away picks at the end of a draft. Grabbing a kicker on the highest scoring team will serve you better than drafting some schmuck as a reserve. The talent is too watered down w/ 14 teams not to maximize every position. Pray you don't get the injury bug.

True or not true, I'm pretty sure the Palin family can handle this issue amongst themselves.

I don't know if she "backtracked" or clarified her position. Only she knows. However, modern day debates are just lame vehicles for mindless "gotcha" politics.

Thanks for the link. What I have read about her comments have simply been, when it is brought up in class that it should not be a taboo topic. My paraphrasing... What you posted was an excerpt from a debate, which you know isn't the best place to get detailed policy positions, as there is no time to discuss such things in detail.

She has never advocated teaching creation in school, despite whatever soundbite you may have heard.

If that were the case, then there would be no need for campaigns. Candidates could fill out an issue card, post them on a website and the vote could commence shortly thereafter. If that were the case, the terms "Reagan-Democrats" and "undecided voters" would not exist. People who shoehorn this choice as being due to "Hillary voters" is taking a simpleton approach to their analysis. Two candidates here running on "change" due to the lack of popularity of the sitting president. One chose an old white established Washington man who has been in office almost since I was born (to pander to white men and to make up for his lack of accomplishments) and the other chose to re-enforce his "change" message by selecting a candidate who actually took on corruption in her own party. Whether or not she brings in "Hillary" voters or not is only one arm of the octopus. There are many forces at work here and to boil it down to "Hillary voters" misses the big picture.

I would expect most reasonable, undecided people would have to take the intellectually honest "I don't have enough information" line before they can make any rational judgments on her effect of their vote.