Debate
I watched most of tonight's Presidential debate. That's two hours of my life I'll never get back.
I spent most of the time yelling my answers to the questions at the TV. Actually, I spent most of my time complaining about the senselessness of the questions...
I looked up the questions on C-SPAN.
What would you do in your first two years on environmental issues?
You're in college, aren't you? My country is at war on two fronts. I don't have time for "environmental issues" right now, hippie. My "environmental" habits are mostly driven by economics. Gas is getting expensive, so I drive a smaller car. See? Environmentally friendly, market-driven. You'll understand that more when you get a real job and have a mortgage.
How will the economy affect U.S. ability to achieve peace in the world?
Huh? Our economy is about making money. Not peace. Step away from the bong. Somebody ask me a question that makes sense.
Would you use forces for humanitarian reasons when U.S. security is not at stake?
Why? So hippies can accuse my administration of imperialism? "Humanitarian reasons" are a waste of time and resources. Look at Africa. Or New Orleans. Next question.
Should the U.S. pursue Al Qaeda inside Pakistan?
Depends. Do you really want to get Bin Laden, or are you just going to accuse my administration of unilateral imperialsm if we do? I resent these kinds of disingenuous questions. Next.
How would you change strategy in Afghanistan?
Why? Are you suggesting our strategy in Afghanistan isn't working? Based on what criteria, exactly? If we pull out, you'll turn around and accuse my administration of abandoning the country. If we stay or increase our forces, you'll accuse my administration of imperialism or of causing too many civilian casualties. No strategy will satisfy you and you know it. If you're serious about the question (and I doubt you are,) go study some history of U.S. casualties in wartime and read some Kipling for good measure and come back with more realistic expectations and a sensible question. Next.
If Iran attacked Israel, would you send troops in response?
No, I'd send nukes in response, because that's what Iran will attack Israel with. Not to suggest Israel can't fend for itself, mind you, I'd just like a justifiable reason to turn Iran into a glowing, radioactive hole in the earth.
What don't you know and how will you learn it?
You probably laughed at Rumsfeld when he said this, didn't you, hypocrite?
I spent most of the time yelling my answers to the questions at the TV. Actually, I spent most of my time complaining about the senselessness of the questions...
I looked up the questions on C-SPAN.
What would you do in your first two years on environmental issues?
You're in college, aren't you? My country is at war on two fronts. I don't have time for "environmental issues" right now, hippie. My "environmental" habits are mostly driven by economics. Gas is getting expensive, so I drive a smaller car. See? Environmentally friendly, market-driven. You'll understand that more when you get a real job and have a mortgage.
How will the economy affect U.S. ability to achieve peace in the world?
Huh? Our economy is about making money. Not peace. Step away from the bong. Somebody ask me a question that makes sense.
Would you use forces for humanitarian reasons when U.S. security is not at stake?
Why? So hippies can accuse my administration of imperialism? "Humanitarian reasons" are a waste of time and resources. Look at Africa. Or New Orleans. Next question.
Should the U.S. pursue Al Qaeda inside Pakistan?
Depends. Do you really want to get Bin Laden, or are you just going to accuse my administration of unilateral imperialsm if we do? I resent these kinds of disingenuous questions. Next.
How would you change strategy in Afghanistan?
Why? Are you suggesting our strategy in Afghanistan isn't working? Based on what criteria, exactly? If we pull out, you'll turn around and accuse my administration of abandoning the country. If we stay or increase our forces, you'll accuse my administration of imperialism or of causing too many civilian casualties. No strategy will satisfy you and you know it. If you're serious about the question (and I doubt you are,) go study some history of U.S. casualties in wartime and read some Kipling for good measure and come back with more realistic expectations and a sensible question. Next.
If Iran attacked Israel, would you send troops in response?
No, I'd send nukes in response, because that's what Iran will attack Israel with. Not to suggest Israel can't fend for itself, mind you, I'd just like a justifiable reason to turn Iran into a glowing, radioactive hole in the earth.
What don't you know and how will you learn it?
You probably laughed at Rumsfeld when he said this, didn't you, hypocrite?
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
No more questions from the audience from now on, please.
posted by Alpineman, RN at 12:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home