Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- SolDevVB on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
174 Comments
For geniouses like CF and CrpnAm who KNOW what the Bush doctrine is-
Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”
– New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
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?”
Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html
In the 21st century is it possible we may have a President who has to refer to a 12 year old in order to send an e-mail?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/New_Obama_ad_hits_McCains_computer_0912.html
Rain, rain, go away; come back some other day.
Charles Krauthammer, the man who coined the phrase “Bush doctrine,” turns the table on the condescending Charlie Gibson.(and CF and CrpnAm )
Take off your smart glasses, Charlie. Because you’ve been schooled:
From Malkin.
I know it’s really, really hard for you but you should read this before gibbering garbage one way or the other about the Bush Doctrine, or any other Doctrine that Krauthammer has claimed falsely to have invented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer
…and Krauthammer has been very critical of Palin as a VP pick so please don’t embarass yourselves by dragging out the “he’s in the tank” meme.
beber
I’ve read it. What’s your point?
Krauthammer wrote –
“…at least she didn’t pretend to know…”
That exactly what she tried to do. If Gibson “looked like an impatient teacher” it’s because the Moose-Dresser looked like a 6th grader desperate to get out of the principal’s office.
As Bob Herbert noted:
“The Bush doctrine, which flung open the doors to the catastrophe in Iraq, was such a fundamental aspect of the administration’s foreign policy that it staggers the imagination that we could have someone no further than a whisper away from the White House who doesn’t even know what it is.
“You can’t imagine that John McCain or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman would not know what the Bush doctrine is. But Sarah Palin? Absolutely clueless.”
Monkey”boy”
Ok, genius, who is the official determiner of the definition of “The Bush Doctrine” and where is it written down?
Don’t try to distract and attack, “Heckler.”
We’re dealing with a person who, just a week before she was selected said, “So exactly what does the Vice-President do?”
Well, one of the things a Vice-President does (or should be able to do) is know the pivotal rationale behind the nation’s foreign policy under George WMD Bush.
Would you want to be wheeled into the operating room past a doctor who says, “So what does a surgeon do, anyway?”
LOL
Oh yes, asking where the Bush Doctrine is defined and by whom and when is a distraction?
Absurd.
Monkey”boy”
Distract and attack? That’s your gig. The centeral point here is this, What is “The Bush Doctrine” and who determines what the phrase means. You are the one distracting.
Perhaps you have no real answer?
Chuckle.. Charles Gibson tried a hard hitting (borderline gotcha) question and it turns out he didn’t understand what all the loosely defined “Bush Doctrine” involved? Boomerang. Ouch.
Wipe the egg off your face Charles. Overall, you did a pretty good job.
I always like hearing from Pirate Captain “Arrr” Charlie Krauthhammer! He is quite the ideology man, Why should we forget about get’n them people that attacked us and go after those that don’t? Why because those that attack us have no natural resources and them that did not attack us do have them… So where be the profit? We be not wanting them space aliens that be watching us to wonder about our intell-r-gents.
The only reason I see to quote Krauthhammer is to point out how big a moron he is.
No, “Heckler” –
The key issue isn’t “who defines the Bush Doctrine.”
The key issue is that someone who stands a 72-year-old heartbeat away from being the most-powerful person in the word… should’ve heard of it.
You don’t want to talk about that.
“What’s your point” — the wefu
My point is the joy of having a wefu actually read something.
Modern reality, if you do not like the definition of words or Phrases than simply change it to suit the moment or meaning you like at the time. The first time I noticed it was when President Reagan joked that the bombing of Russia starts in five minutes. Now it would have been simple enough to counter it with he was joking. But for the next two days there were talking heads that kept explaining what he meant by the simple English words he said. Is the definition of “bush Doctrine” covered the same as when McCain made a statement that was contrary to what the campaign was saying. “ He does not speak for the campaign!”.
Bush got credit for the Doctrine and even defined it in his own words but now that is not what the campaign said! Oh Obama said he want to fight poverty but does that mean he is going to help get people off of welfare or gun them down?
MonkeyHawk,
Should have heard of what? What you call the Bush Doctrine? What Gibson called the Bush Doctrine? Or what 50 other people think the Bush Doctrine is?
That is the point indeed.
The ‘Clinton’ and cowardly liberals on this blog doctrine…
To molly-coddle terrorists and rogue nations to the point they feel confident in attacking us. As in 9/11.
I think it interesting that those that lose friends and loved ones are not so against preemptive protection of our lives and country.
Everyone on the planet knows what the Bush Doctrine was (that is the 25 percent which actually knows what a doctrine is) : it’s pre-emptive strike at perceived threats. Krauthammer doesn’t get to define it or waffle over the meaning. Krauthammer is a columnist, not the author of the doctrine. If Palin asks “in what respect?” that fine; but her response should have been: “In regard to pre-emption, or democratization, Mr. Gibson, or do you mean not negotiating unless the outcome is already known?” because that’s what someone who actually knew something about recent politics or history, or anything would say.
Beber,
Since you seem to know what everyone knows or should know perhaps you can answer the questions then.
Where is the Bush Doctrine defined? Who defined it? When was it defined?
We’ve already had a fundy idiot in office. Haven’t you learned a damn thing. No, because you’re fundies.
You think a psychological aberration and possibly a psychosis is being “born again.”
I’d fogotten,`”Nathaniel,” your post the other day when you got up on your hind legs, indignant, and said, “Even I didn’t know about the Bush Doctrine!”
Even YOU!
Golly. What are the odds, boy?
Your not knowing about the Bush Doctrine is one of the many reasons you’re not qualified to be Vice-President.
“The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars identify seven different “Bush Doctrines,” including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, the willingness to use a “coalition of the willing” if the United Nations does not address threats, the doctrine of preemptive war, and the president’s second-term “freedom agenda”.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
The inventor of the term “Bush Doctrine,” Charles Krauthammer, explained in his latest column for the Washington Post that Charlie Gibson, of ABC News, got the Bush Doctrine all wrong in his interview with Republican running mate Sarah Palin.
‘The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong,’ he wrote.
http://poligazette.com/2008/09/13/charles-krauthammer-explains-charlie-gibson-had-it-wrong/
Well, there you have it MonkeyCrap and Beber, Bush doctrine origins and the many definitions with no OFFICIAL definition.
And of course, the usual spin and arm flailing responses from the Lib deniers.
Monkey”boy”
Once again, tell me what “the Bush Doctrine” is and who defines it.
One would think that if anyone other than Bush would know what it is that Karl Rove would be that person. On one of the chattering head shows last night Rove was on. He outlined 4 seperate Bush policies that the Left media has over the years called “The Bush Doctrine”.
Even Charlie Gibson has over the years used “The Bush Doctrine” to describe seperate Bush policies.
“boy”, you must be so sad. Bitterly clinging to every little shard of manufactured Palin “scandal”, desperately trying to mold them into something substantive. But you can only do it in your mind because the rest of the world sees them for what they are. Political smear with no substance. The only substansive smear you have is in your shorts from your pant schitting hysteria.
And the usual intellectually impotent name-calling by “Regular.”
(yawn)
I have concluded that the MAJOR part of the Bush “Doctrine” is the Bush Administration’s open willingness to make pre-emptive strikes at what the Administration considers an enemy of the USA…. whether it is or not….
I honestly believe Bush would strike against Israel, if Israel pulled off a nuclear(or is that nucular) confrontation…. Because he honestly or stupidly believes he is right…
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted September 13, 2008 at 8:40 am | Permalink
And the usual intellectually impotent name-calling by “Regular.”
(yawn)
———————
FRIGGIN’ OWNED BY THE TRUTH MONKEYHOCK!
hahahahaha!
ROFLMAO!!
IF Ms. Palin would have said: “Well, Charlie, there are many parts to the Bush Doctrine — Which part do you want me to talk about” THEN she would have had Gibson by the cahones…..
“Heckler” –
I have not been determined by John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) to be the second-best person in America to lead the Free World.
But even I have heard of the Bush Doctrine.
But I’ve never dressed a moose.
Monkey, it’s a lost cause… The only way to win this mess, is to vote them into oblivion in November…. Get out and get em registered to vote!!
#
Heckler
Posted September 13, 2008 at 7:09 am | Permalink
Monkey”boy”
Ok, genius, who is the official determiner of the definition of “The Bush Doctrine” and where is it written down?
========================================================
In reality, since there seems to be NO official definition of the Bush Doctrine, it is open to interpretation. So Liberals are going to define it one way, and Conservatives another. Why is anybody surprised? It’s basically a moot point.
#
JMWalker
Posted September 13, 2008 at 8:54 am | Permalink
#
Heckler
Posted September 13, 2008 at 7:09 am | Permalink
Monkey”boy”
Ok, genius, who is the official determiner of the definition of “The Bush Doctrine” and where is it written down?
========================================================
In reality, since there seems to be NO official definition of the Bush Doctrine, it is open to interpretation. So Liberals are going to define it one way, and Conservatives another. Why is anybody surprised? It’s basically a moot point.
———————————
Translated:
The big ‘hoo haa’ the Libs have made about it the past two days was meaningless; and we Libs won’t apologize for leaping on the opportunity about a term that is official; is not listed anywhere but in Journalistic circles and even though Palin ask Charlie Gibson to clarify the question, Gibson didn’t or couldn’t.
FRIGGIN OWNED BY THE TRUTH!!!!
hahahahaha!
ROFLMAO!!!
“JMWalker” admits –
” It’s basically a moot point.”
But my point still stands.
A major party’s candidate for Vice-President should have at least heard of the term.
It was painfully obvious the Moose-Dresser had no clue whatsoever.
WE BLOG, where the Daily Kos, Media Matters and Moveon.org Leftist Libs get owned daily by those who seek the truth!
ROFLMAO!
Hahahahahaha!
Monkey
“But even I have heard of the Bush Doctrine.”
What was Palins initial answer to Gibson?
“”He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?””
Now just what part of this exchange leads you to determine that Palin had never heard of “The Bush Doctrine”?
I see the insanity has started early this morning. The usual cast of bad characters.
Anybody seen the pictures of watched the news? I hear there is a hurricane in Texas.
Things are pretty wet around here, too. The Arkansas runs about 75 yards from the back of my house. It’s about 20-30 feet out of the banks and looks like a REAL river.
XXX
Good Morning. We’re just having a little fun schooling KosKids who are bitterly clinging to shreds of tattered Palin “scandal”.
What are they afraid of?
Good luck, X…it is looking pretty nasty according to the news. Interesting to see that City busses were being used to help evacuate seniors when the flooding threatened their facility. The City response to this is pretty large…but, somehow, that doesn’t stop the crazy people from trying to drive thru flooded intersections, and getting stuck.
Good luck, X…at least it isn’t raining right at this moment….
XXX
House in any danger? I hope a good chunk of that 75 feet is in the vertical axis.
“Heckler” –
If that’s all the better you read people I want to play poker with you.
#
Regular
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:00 am | Permalink
#
JMWalker
Posted September 13, 2008 at 8:54 am | Permalink
#
Heckler
Posted September 13, 2008 at 7:09 am | Permalink
Monkey”boy”
Ok, genius, who is the official determiner of the definition of “The Bush Doctrine” and where is it written down?
========================================================
In reality, since there seems to be NO official definition of the Bush Doctrine, it is open to interpretation. So Liberals are going to define it one way, and Conservatives another. Why is anybody surprised? It’s basically a moot point.
———————————
Translated:
The big ‘hoo haa’ the Libs have made about it the past two days was meaningless; and we Libs won’t apologize for leaping on the opportunity about a term that is official; is not listed anywhere but in Journalistic circles and even though Palin ask Charlie Gibson to clarify the question, Gibson didn’t or couldn’t.
FRIGGIN OWNED BY THE TRUTH!!!!
hahahahaha!
ROFLMAO!!!
=====================================================
Post the truth, and Regular makes a joke out of it. And Freebird asked for some bipartisanship on the blog. Freebird, as you might have just read, that seems impossible of Regular and his ilk.
By the way, dufus, your “interpretation” of my post is as far from what was written as your brain is from thinking anything intelligent.
JMWalker
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:15 am
Post the truth, and Regular makes a joke out of it. And Freebird asked for some bipartisanship on the blog. Freebird, as you might have just read, that seems impossible of Regular and his ilk.
By the way, dufus, your “interpretation” of my post is as far from what was written as your brain is from thinking anything intelligent
——————————
Translated:
The big ‘hoo haa’ the Libs have made about it the past two days was meaningless; and we Libs won’t apologize for leaping on the opportunity about a term that is official; is not listed anywhere but in Journalistic circles and even though Palin ask Charlie Gibson to clarify the question, Gibson didn’t or couldn’t.
FRIGGIN OWNED BY THE TRUTH!!!!
hahahahaha!
ROFLMAO!!!
XXX,
Hope this ain’t that thousand year flood we talked about. Given the chance, I’m betting those dogs would start bringing home catfish, if given half the chance:-) Keep yer powder dry.
Wow, XXX — You are a little bit closer to the river than I am… The bank here is high enough, I cant see the water…. But, I noticed when crossing the Bridge, that the water was pretty high…
Monkey
Chas said it right-
“IF Ms. Palin would have said: “Well, Charlie, there are many parts to the Bush Doctrine — Which part do you want me to talk about” THEN she would have had Gibson by the cahones…..”
…but that’s some pretty easy monday morning quarterbacking.
She knew he was going for “GOTCHA”, she could have handled it better but as it was she managed to make him look every bit the part of the condescending elitist jerk he was being.
….. and you know what Monkey, there are a lot of women out there who will sympathize with her. They’ve gotten the same sanctimonious look from some jerk male boss they’ve worked for.
And some of them will vote for her because they can identify.
Charlie cost Obamassiah some votes.
Sandbags available from City, County
Date: September 12, 2008
Contact:Dale Goter, Communications Team
Phone: (316) 268-4351
A limited number of sandbags are being made available to the public Friday, Sept. 12, by the public works departments of the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County.
Ten trucks loaded with sand and empty sandbags have been dispatched by the City of Wichita to selected locations. Citizens will be allowed to load bags and take them to their property for flood control use. A limited number of pre-filled bags will be available.
Additionally, filled sand bags will also be available at the Sedgwick County Public Works West Yard at 47th Street South and West Street. Supplies are limited and are available on a first come, first served basis.
Locations of the 10 City of Wichita trucks include:
* Firefly Street south of 13th Street
* Lost Creek east of 119th Street
* Jayson Lane west of 119th Street
* Wetmore east of Maize (north entrance)
* Seville and Kellogg
* Hidden Valley and Taft
* 119th and Lynndale
* Rainbow Lake south of Central.
#
Regular
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:18 am | Permalinkt
——————————
Translated:
The big ‘hoo haa’ the Libs have made about it the past two days was meaningless; and we Libs won’t apologize for leaping on the opportunity about a term that is official; is not listed anywhere but in Journalistic circles and even though Palin ask Charlie Gibson to clarify the question, Gibson didn’t or couldn’t.
FRIGGIN OWNED BY THE TRUTH!!!!
hahahahaha!
ROFLMAO!!!
======================================================
Translated:
“Gosh, I’m too frikin’ stupid to think up something intelligent to say, so I’ll go with my usual useless slam of anything remotely Liberal and intelligent.
Awesome: I did it. Now I can roll on the floor and laugh my ass of ’cause I just Slammed JM.”
Brilliant, reg. Hope all neo-cons think like you. Opps . . . look out for that litter bo . . .too late. I told you rolling on the floor could be nasty.
Thanks for the concern guys, but the XXXs live on top of a hill on the east side of the river. There’s miles of flat land on the west side. It would take a flood of Biblical proportions to reach the house. There’s water in the meadow, but the river would have to rise another 40-50 feet to reach us.
Walker, now is when you need to bring your fishing pole. The catfish are running in the meadow, LOL! I was down at the water’s edge taking pictures this morning. A huge catfish swished by my feet and scared the **** out of me.
Again guys, thanks for the concern; just shows that when we get past politics, we can be friends.
JMWalker
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:26 am
Translated:
“Gosh, I’m too frikin’ stupid to think up something intelligent to say, so I’ll go with my usual useless slam of anything remotely Liberal and intelligent.
Awesome: I did it. Now I can roll on the floor and laugh my ass of ’cause I just Slammed JM.”
Brilliant, reg. Hope all neo-cons think like you. Opps . . . look out for that litter bo . . .too late. I told you rolling on the floor could be nasty.
————————-
Just pay back for your condescending responses and generally behaving like an ass hole 99 percent of the time when people make reasonable responses to you.
How does it feel Walker?
THANK GOD Obama is cancelling SNL Appearance to SAVE US ALL FROM HURRICANE IKE!!!!
(While he stays is New Hampshire, I hope Obama is safe there. Hopefully he’s in a shelter.)
————————————————————
Obama Cancels SNL Appearance, Tones Down Campaign for Ike
by Associated Press
Saturday, September 13, 2008
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Barack Obama’s campaign toned down its events Saturday in response to Hurricane Ike, canceling plans for the Democratic presidential nominee to crack jokes on “Saturday Night Live” and for his running mate to appear at a joint rally.
Obama was to appear in a skit on the NBC comedy show’s season premiere, hosted by Olympic champion swimmer Michael Phelps. Campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Obama decided it was no longer appropriate because of the devastation in Texas.
Obama and Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden were to campaign together at an outdoor rally in Manchester’s Veteran’s Memorial Park. But the campaign decided to scale back the event as the storm battered the Gulf Coast. Biden decided not to appear, the campaign said.
Obama spoke by telephone Friday with David Paulison, head of the Federal Emergency
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/13/obama-cancels-snl-appearance-tones-down-campaign-for-ike/
#
Regular
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:30 am | Permalink
Just pay back for your condescending responses and generally behaving like an ass hole 99 percent of the time when people make reasonable responses to you.
How does it feel Walker?
=================================================
I guess I feel a bit like you:-)
HOW’s it Feel to have your VP Biden HIDING all the time!?!
Obama and Biden were to appear together, but Obama’s embarrassed to have the old hose bag around. Ya never know when Biden is gonna say something STUPID!
Plus Biden is just plain OLD.
#
MaxGrobnik
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:32 am | Permalink
THANK GOD Obama is cancelling SNL Appearance to SAVE US ALL FROM HURRICANE IKE!!!!
(While he stays is New Hampshire, I hope Obama is safe there. Hopefully he’s in a shelter.)
————————————————————
Obama Cancels SNL Appearance, Tones Down Campaign for Ike
by Associated Press
Saturday, September 13, 2008
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Barack Obama’s campaign toned down its events Saturday in response to Hurricane Ike, canceling plans for the Democratic presidential nominee to crack jokes on “Saturday Night Live” and for his running mate to appear at a joint rally.
======================================================
. . .and yadda, yadda.
And what, exactly, is McCain doing?
#
MaxGrobnik
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:35 am | Permalink
HOW’s it Feel to have your VP Biden HIDING all the time!?!
Obama and Biden were to appear together, but Obama’s embarrassed to have the old hose bag around. Ya never know when Biden is gonna say something STUPID!
Plus Biden is just plain OLD.
=======================================================
So, reg, this is one of the “reasonable” posts you were talking about?
#
JMWalker
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:36 am | Permalink
And what, exactly, is McCain doing?
______________________________________________
Not much he can do. His arms are too short, LOL!
#
JMWalker
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:38 am | Permalink
#
MaxGrobnik
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:35 am | Permalink
HOW’s it Feel to have your VP Biden HIDING all the time!?!
Obama and Biden were to appear together, but Obama’s embarrassed to have the old hose bag around. Ya never know when Biden is gonna say something STUPID!
Plus Biden is just plain OLD.
=======================================================
So, reg, this is one of the “reasonable” posts you were talking about?
————————–
You see Walker, and let me explain this one more time to those who don’t understand.
Max’s post wasn’t addressed to an individual. It was his opinion and posted as such.
Read it and move on or ignore, no one cares if you get your sensitive feelings hurt.
ABC is in the tank for McCain/Palin.
They advertised that Palin would be asked about banning books on Nightline.
And then did not show it.
“Liberal media” my foot.
Here’s an article about the lib media moms, they have made comments about Palin kids, but ignore their family situation with similiar problems of raising kids while working. My wife raised kids while working and so is my daughter, like millions others.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/silence_of_the_media_moms_128858.htm
#
Regular
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:41 am | Permalink
You see Walker, and let me explain this one more time to those who don’t understand.
Max’s post wasn’t addressed to an individual. It was his opinion and posted as such.
Read it and move on or ignore, no one cares if you get your sensitive feelings hurt.
=====================================================
Let me explain, reg: It’s posts like that, that have no use whatsoever, that elicit negative responses. But that is also your domain. You do it all the time. Just read your own posts:
=======================================================
“#
Regular
Posted September 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm | Permalink.
A thread for the Liberal perverts and their unhealthy attraction of underage girls – how nice.”
======================================================
So if you think of yourself as a don’t do as I do person, then the problem ain’t over here.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/33504/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-fri-sep-5-2008?c=385:492
Of course Obama does belong on Saturday Night Live.
He’s the biggest joke ever.
#
JMWalker
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:54 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:41 am | Permalink
You see Walker, and let me explain this one more time to those who don’t understand.
Max’s post wasn’t addressed to an individual. It was his opinion and posted as such.
Read it and move on or ignore, no one cares if you get your sensitive feelings hurt.
=====================================================
Let me explain, reg: It’s posts like that, that have no use whatsoever, that elicit negative responses. But that is also your domain. You do it all the time. Just read your own posts:
=======================================================
“#
Regular
Posted September 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm | Permalink.
A thread for the Liberal perverts and their unhealthy attraction of underage girls – how nice.”
======================================================
So if you think of yourself as a don’t do as I do person, then the problem ain’t over here.
——————————-
So you are admitting to being a Liberal Pervert?
That’s who that was addressed to after all.
You’re a sensitive little flower aren’t you?
Walker, thank you for your careful and very intellectual analysis of my posts.
Now tell me, how does it feel to have your VP Biden being knocked down and out to make room for Heellary?
Will you hold another convention to approve Obama’s corrected pick for VP? Or do party rules not matter? (Just like laws like the 2nd Amendment don’t matter to Obama)
And Walker, your “Reasonable Posts” are showing.
Geez, barely 10 a.m., and already the Perverts are out!! Gonna be a long day!!
I dont need that crap…. Nobody else does either!!
I see the right wing has co-opted this thread.
Movin’ on.
Dennis
Yes Yellowdog, put your lil tail between your legs and trot off.
The ambiance of your Lib Lovenest has been interrupted.
Go somewhere where you can be with your own kind, and you don’t have to face the ugliness of your mirror.
Go somewhere where you can hold your hand out and say “Gimme, Gimme, Gimme” in peace.
Ah, Max, I’ve been making my own way in the world since I was 14. And I brush off insults from those who feel it is their right to judge me.
Dennis
Good for you Dennis. I hope you and your broom are very happy together.
Now I noticed you missed a spot down the hall, go sweep it up.
How many did Obama save from Hurricane Ike?
Hey ‘chas’…while you whine about not needing any crap, why not tell that to your vulgar buddy beber and his ongoing tirade accusing everyone he disagrees with as being a ‘bush whore’. Talk about unneeded crap…
or, educate your lying buddy capn that there is no ‘ignore’ feature on this blog.
Quite the group of friends you have there…a childish vulgar one and a liar.
Ya know, ya gotta love a guy like heckie who quotes krauthead and malkin and then hoots about Kos Kids…
Seeking the truth?
hehehehehehehehehehheheheh.
“you cant handle the truth”
Kansas, twelfth from the BOTTOM on openness?
heheheh. Say it isnt so!
Kansas…as bigoted as you think!
Now available with new and improved PROOF!
Fact: the “Bush Doctrine” is not a clear policy. It could refer to one of 4 or 5 Bush stances.
Gov. Palin asked Charlie to clarify, but he chose to be even more nebulous. She chose the Bush principle that seems appropriate for the flavor of the interview – and answered it well.
KEEP POUNDING ON HER, LIBS!
Sarah Pale One is such a caricature that you can’t tell the difference between her and the actors who imitate her. Ever notice that?
“KSGolfnut” tries –
“…the “Bush Doctrine” is not a clear policy. It could refer to one of 4 or 5 Bush stances.”
Many of them contradictory.
But you’ve just proven yourself to be capable of a better response than the Moose-Dresser came up with.
Why?
Because you know something about the Bush Doctrine.
The SnowBilly could have responded as you did: “Y’know, Chalie, the “Bush Doctrine” is not a clear policy. It could refer to one of 4 or 5 Bush stances.”
And even implying that “the Bush Doctrine is not a clear policy” probably would result in repercussions she shied away from. So she tried — and failed — to bluff her way.
But she didn’t do that. She gasped, looked like a
deermoose in the headlights and squirmed ’til she could remember a talking-point from her pre-interview cram session.I like whomever’s suggestion it was that the next journalist to interviews her just make something up. “So, Governor, do you think the Heisenburger Methodology or the Svens-Kohn Proposition best represents your views about rectifying the currency discrepancies between First- and Third-World nations?”
And look at her reponse.
Anyone who knew anything about currency or the Third- (or for that matter, the First-) World would know that I just made up the Heisenburger Methodology or the Svens-Kohn Proposition.
Someone who knew about currency or Third- and First- world would say, “What you talkin’ about, Willis?”
The Moose-Dresser couldn’t.
The Moose-Dresser didn’t have a clue.
What the “Bush Doctrine” question gave us was the Moose-Dresser wouldn’t have had the ability or confidence to come out and say, “What is this so-called ‘Bush Doctrine’ you’re talking about?” or, “Do you object to unilateral preemptive attacks of nations without provocation?” or gathering together “a coalition of the willing?”
Or, she could have proven herself to be at least as competent a Vice-Presidential candidate as “KSGolfnut” by saying “The Bush Doctrine is not a clear policy. It could refer to….”
She didn’t.
Because she didn’t have a clue.
She’s the one person on the planet that the Republic Party has determined to be the second-best person on the planet to lead the Free World.
But we here at WE Blog know that “KSGolfnut” would have been McCoot’s better choice for Veep.
#
JMWalker
Posted September 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Permalink
As an aside, anyone wanting to see a great (dark) comedy, should see “Burn After Reading.” I laughed from the opening credits until I was driving away after the movie. Coen Brothers rock!
“ksfarmgrrl” notes –
“Kansas, twelfth from the BOTTOM on openness?”
Okay, everybody together!
WE’RE NUMBER TWELFTH-FROM-THE-BOTTOM!
WE’RE NUMBER TWELFTH-FROM-THE-BOTTOM!!
I’m surprised we scored that high.
What? Did Phred Felps and Brenda Landwehr and most of the CONs on this forum get a bye?
Are we grading on the curve?
When I read some of the posts from people such as “Kandisue” and “Franklin” and “Chrisfrommactown” and “Nathaniel,” and “Boxlock” and… (well, you know) it’s hard for me to come to the grips that (I assume) these people otherwise function in a civilized society without being declared certifiably insane.
What must life be like for people living in, say, the seventh-from-the-bottom state?
Maybe that’s a reason why I bother with this forum. There might be a few people who are just ignorant and not as stupid and ignorant as they appear here. They might be capable of learning.
If we work real hard and get the facts and think about them, Kansas, maybe next year we might evolve to the point we can brag:
WE’RE NUMBER 16th-FROM-THE BOTTOM!!!
It would, sadly, be an improvement.
(sigh)
#
Regular
Posted September 13, 2008 at 9:57 am | Permalink
So you are admitting to being a Liberal Pervert?
That’s who that was addressed to after all.
You’re a sensitive little flower aren’t you?
====================================================
You’re not only too stupid to come up with something intelligent, original or true, you are one sick POS. Is Franklin your dad, or were you just a stain on a red dress.
#
MaxGrobnik
Posted September 13, 2008 at 10:05 am | Permalink
Walker, thank you for your careful and very intellectual analysis of my posts.
===================================================
Being as you have never posted anything remotely intelligent, why should I respond in kind? Just using neo-con logic, boy. How you liking it?
I see that “JM” is following in beber’s footsteps with comments like:
“…or were you just a stain on a red dress.”
Ahh yes…that passes for “logic” in some minds. Sad, isn’t it how some people find it impossible to handle disagreements without resorting to crude insults.
Statement by Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer
regarding current flooding crisis
Date: September 12, 2008
Contact: Dale Goter, Communications Team
Phone: (316) 268-4351
Heavy rains across south-central Kansas have created a major crisis for residents and property owners in west Wichita.
I want to assure our citizens that the City of Wichita is committing all available resources to assist residents affected by this flooding. We also are working in close cooperation with the Sedgwick County Emergency Management throughout this crisis period.
Our most recent information indicates that the Dry Creek tributary in west Wichita has risen above flood level and is diverting water into the north fork of the Calfskin Creek.
Those conditions are of grave concern because they mirror the situation that created the Halloween Flood of 1998.
We are urging citizens in those affected areas to exercise extreme caution and alertness in anticipation of continued flooding.
The Wichita Fire Department and Sedgwick County Emergency Management are working to alert residents in the affected subdivisions.
It is also extremely important that all citizens recognize the danger of flood waters in our city. We strongly discourage residents from wading or playing in flooded streets or ignoring barricades that are blocking flooded areas.
Police and fire department responses to those kinds of activities only detract from their ability to deal with much more serious concerns raised by this crisis.
Other actions taken by the City of Wichita during the past 24 hours include:
* Deploying 12 trucks loaded with sand and sand bags to selected areas. Citizens are welcome to fill sand bags and use them for flood protection.
* The Red Cross and Sedgwick County Emergency Management have made arrangements with the Metro East Baptist Church at West Douglas and McLean for use as an emergency shelter.
Also, the City of Wichita is prepared to use its recreational centers and Century 2 as emergency shelters.
* The City and County will continue to monitor rainfall and stream flow and will continue on a high level of alert throughout this weather period.
* The Fire Department has called back to duty its off-duty water rescue team to assist the on-duty team.
In closing, I would urge all of our citizens to be aware of the dangers caused by these torrential rains. Challenging times require a united community that is willing to help its neighbors. Help where you can, but don’t contribute to the problem by traveling or playing in flooded area.
Those dumb Texans, had all that time to evacuate, and now have to risk responder lives because they refused to.
Greenspan: Country can’t afford McCain’s tax cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Alan Greenspan says the country can’t afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain — at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending.
“Unless we cut spending, no,” the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked McCain’s proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.
“I’m not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money,” Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. “I always have tied tax cuts to spending.”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD9361PJO0
It’s funny, now airbus is once again postulating they may not submit a bid for the tanker. I say, So?
MonkeyHawk,
Did you ever figure out where the Bush Doctrine was defined, by whome, and when yet?
Nathaniel has been posting about “character” on another thread.
Nathaniel, a U.S. Marine, and a true Christian, stole lots of music, and video.
Nathaniel posted September 11, 2008 at 3:39 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/09/open-thread-911-2/#comment-422805
“I know it is “stealing” but I have about 100 GB of Music that I have from Iraq with another 500GB of movies and TV shows.”
————
Nathaniel, how much would that music and video cost you, if you had actually bought the CDs and DVDs?
Nathan, that has been defined for more than 6 years now…. Did you miss it somewhere???
LOL
Here Nathan >>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
Chas,
That doesn’t tell me anything.
LOL
Well, it does if you actually READ it… Good grief…. you are sooo dense!!
NATHAN —- This was YOUR question >>>>
“Did you ever figure out where the Bush Doctrine was defined, by whome, and when yet?”
The Wiki article clearly answers each one of those three areas… If you cant figure that out, I’m sorry…
Chas,
I did read it. Good grief… you are soooo dense!!
So what is the Bush Doctrine then Chas?
Is it increased unilateralism?
Was it about Missile defense?
Which of the 7 Doctrines are we talking about according to “some scholars?”
Exactly which definition should Palin have known? The one Gibson thought it was or the one that Krauthammer thaught it was?
Or perhaps one of the 7 that “some scholars” thought it was?
Nitwit.
Nathan…. the answers to all of your questions are in the Wiki article… Why do I need to reiterate them for you??
That isnt my job…. YOU asked the question…. the answer was provided… You dont GET it… Damn, no wonder you like Palin… ROFL!!
Krauthammer defined a Bush Doctrine 7 months BEFORE 9/11 —- February, 2001…. MUCH happened after Feb., 2001….
Chas, even McCain thinks Palin isn’t qualified to be President.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/12/113946/222/833/596140
And that was even before she displayed a complete lack of understanding on foreign policy issues.
“Nathaniel” asks –
MonkeyHawk,
Did you ever figure out where the Bush Doctrine was defined, by whome, and when yet?”
Sorry, boy. I’ve been distracted today. I was too busy looking up how to spell “whom” correctly.
Maybe some of the other posters on this thread can give you some clues about the Bush Doctrine.
Oh, wait.
I see they have.
Nevermind, boy.
We give you books and give you books and all you do is eat the pages.
Chas,
The wiki article basically said there is not any one set definition of the Bush Doctrine, who defined it or when it was defined.
So yes, it did answer my questions.
So why do you and the other liberals keep harping on Palin not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when there is not any 1 thing to know?
MonkeyHawk,
Let me guess, that was your attempt at trying not to make things personal again?
You lying hypocrite.
Chas wouldn’t have known what the Bush doctrine was three days ago if it crawled up his ass.
Full of b.s. as usual.
Nathaniel, how much would that music and video cost you, if you had actually bought the CDs and DVDs?
Hey cosmos still want to debate Governor Palin one on one concerning Alaskan Petroleum products?
No guts, no glory you know.
Cosmos,
I wouldn’t have ever bought 99% of the things I have on my hard drive.
The question is irrelevant to me.
Nathaniel posted September 13, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“I wouldn’t have ever bought 99% of the things I have on my hard drive.
The question is irrelevant to me.”
———-
Okay, then delete all 600 GB of the music and video files, and buy the 1%.
That isnt quite what Wiki says, Nathan, and the sad fact is, you already know that…
Wiki says that some folks say that The Bush Doctrine may have as many as SEVEN different parts to it… It also says that Bush himself defined part of it…. ALSO it says that Krauthammer couldnt have defined accurately, what had not come into being in Feb., 2001….
Now, instead of your stupid, dumb, game of 20 OR 30 questions… Why not stick with what IS stated in Wiki, and take it from thre….
IF Palin would have known anything at all about the Bush Doctrine, she could have asked Gibson —- “Which part do you want to talk about, Charlie?”
Instead, she says, “In respect to what, Charlie?” (a good bluff question — phishing for more information)
Sure thing Cosmos.
Chas,
When there is so much to what the Bush Dcotrine could be, seems like asking “in respect to what” would be the reasonable thing to do.
That is what the article says and the sad fact is that you don’t seem to understand that and refuse to explain yourself either.
Charlie Gibson, ABC news is hardly the intellectual giant of political science. It was all scripted for the anchor boy.
“Nathaniel” whines –
“MonkeyHawk,
“Let me guess, that was your attempt at trying not to make things personal again?”
What, boy?
Did I go and hurt your feelings again?
For an ex-Marine you sure seem to be hypersensitive to perceived slights, real and imagined.
About six hours ago — I’m not counting, but it’s been more-or-less two football games’ worth of time — it was established in this thread that being an expert on the Bush Doctrine might not be a critical criterion for posting on WE Blog, but at least being aware of it might come in handy if you turn up to be a 72-year-old’s heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
Don’t call me out, boy, in a battle of wits if you insist on showing up with half a weapon.
“You lying hypocrite.”
Nothing personal about that, now is there, boy?
ABC News’ Charles Gibson, who is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine,” has himself defined the nebulous phrase in a variety of ways, including one that mirrored Palin’s disputed explanation.
Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”
But when Palin tried to give a similar definition on Thursday, Gibson corrected her.
“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,” Palin said in her first interview since being nominated as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate.
Gibson countered: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/
———————-
Charlie didn’t remember what the Bush Doctrine was as defined by him in 2001. WIKI is an imperfect research tool and not the last word. What Gibson said should be.
Just another left wing gotcha that didn’t work.
Nathan, WHY would I want to explain what is already explained in Wiki??? That seems like a really stupid thing for you to say…
Palin clearly had NO clue what Gibson asked her… and I was most surprised by that, given at how much news time has been used to talk about the Bush Doctrine, since 9/11, and Bush’s pre-emptive strikes, etc., etc…
Chas,
Why do you even bother trying to start a discussion or get involved when you have no intention of ever explaining yourself or answering questions?
That seems really stuid. Yet you always do it.
http://www.236.com/video/2008/watch_the_rnc_in_a_minute_8773.php
Multi-nic’d Regular posted September 13, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hey cosmos still want to debate Governor Palin one on one concerning Alaskan Petroleum products?
No guts, no glory you know.
———-
Debating liars, like multi-nic’d Regular, and Sarah Palin, is a waste of time.
http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.html
cosmos_originally
Posted September 13, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
Multi-nic’d Regular posted September 13, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hey cosmos still want to debate Governor Palin one on one concerning Alaskan Petroleum products?
No guts, no glory you know.
———-
Debating liars, like multi-nic’d Regular, and Sarah Palin, is a waste of time.
========================
So you admit you are a coward and would lose the debate.
http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.html
Greenspan agains Mccain tax cut plan:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080913/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_4
“Which part do you want to talk about, Charlie?”,
and “In respect to what, Charlie?”, are essentially the same thing.
Chas, you are just fishing for something and making a fool of yourself in the process.
You are both ‘dumb and dumber’ all rolled into one, and it continues to amaze me you have enough neural fiber to keep you breathing.
Boxlicker / Nathan — I have no need to explain a Wiki article…. Both of you need a brain….
Boxer, If I wanted to waste my time, I would explain why your premise is SO wrong… But, then you would have to understand English comprehension…. And there isnt room on the Blog for you to lern that….
Besides, the Bush Doctrine is the question that the Reich Wing is using as a distraction from the more important question that Palin blew big time!!
Using the right-wing fundies’ point of view:
WHY DOES GOD HATE HOUSTON?
A teacher in New York asked her 6th grade class how many of them were McCain fans…
Not really knowing what a McCain fan was, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he decided to be different… again. Little Johnny said, ‘Because I’m not a McCain fan.’
The teacher said, ‘Why aren’t you a McCain fan?’ Johnny said, ‘Because I’m a Democrat.’ The teacher asked why he’s a Democrat.
Little Johnny answered, ‘Well, my Mom’s a Democrat and my Dad’s a Democrat, so I’m a Democrat.’
The teacher asks, ‘If your Mom was a moron, and your Dad was an idiot, what would that make you?’
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, ‘That would make me a McCain fan.’
Also, why does God hate West Wichita?
Ok Chas… Fine.
Even if we accept your premise that Palin blew the question big time.
Guess what?
Most of the public has no idea what the Bush Doctrine is either and they don’t care or realize that she blew it big time.
Moving on…
She blew a few others too…
CapnAmerica,
Obviously there must be a Homosexual somewhere on the west side God was trying to drown.
– Nathan says –
“Most of the public has no idea what the Bush Doctrine is either and they don’t care or realize that she blew it big time.”
Well…. they know it now!! ROFL!!!
And I have just finished the excellent “The Wrecking Crew” by Thomas Frank. Though I do have the extensive footnotes to read through.
A fantastic treatment on how the cons have virtually destroyed America. Summed up nicely in the last two lines.
“Whenever there was a choice to be made between markets and free people-between money and the common good-the conservatives chose money. It’s time to make them answer for it.”
To which I add.
So let it be written. So let it be DONE!
BlueJay,
That is rather funny and ironic coming from someone who routinely chooses money as well. You routinely choose that you want to take other peoples money instead of earning it for yourself.
Go figure.
Nathan, you CONSTANTLY say that about Blue Jay…. You know, I think it’s time you post some sort of link that actually shows Blue Jay/JR, saying what you constantly attribute to him…. Got a link to ANY thing like that??? Hmmmm????
Chas,
I’ll take a page from your playbook. Go find it for yourself.
Don’t sweat it Chas, I don’t.
I mean consider the source.
Chas, your joke is old, very old, and now twisted.
It was originally written reversed the Obama fans being the idiots. Which of course makes much more sense than the way you turned it around.
What is interesting is that you liberals couldn’t come up with that on you own but had to steal and them alter it for your purpose.
Shows the dimwitted abilities of the DimLibs and Obama fans.
I know, BlueJay… but, it is time for these bozos to prove what they say, instead of just attack…
BlueJay, now quit trying to make Chas feel better about himself.
This has been a rather slow afternoon and I’d like to see Chas fly into one of his meltdowns again.
They are always so funny.
Well if you are looking for meltdowns Box?
Why not give us one of yours?
Here, I’ll help get you started.
Gay marriage is going to happen and you can’t stop it. The forces of change will bury you. Too? A woman’s right to choose is not going anywhere any time soon.
A pantywaist like yourself can’t provoke me BJ.
You are simply amusing in a simpletons sort of way.
And, NAW…you’re wrong on your predictions because both run counter to normal, healthy, human nature.
There will always be resistance to both, probably to the point of major concessions on your side in the future.
How do ya like that prospect.
Chas,
Like you ever even attempt to prove what you say?
LOL
The last 4 decades of cultural evolution are against you Boxlock. It is your side which must retreat and make concessions!
Oh folks like you may be an unmoveable object.
But change is an irresistable force.
You and yours will lose. America will be a better place for it.
McCain: Liar Who Won’t Correct
13 Sep 2008 03:48 pm
If McCain were a blogger, he would have had to retract by now. But he’s running for president of the United States, so he can say anything, lie about anything and not have to answer for it. Yesterday, John McCain lied on national television about something that no one disputes in the public record. He was challenged by the only serious journalists on television right now – the hosts of “The View” – about the large number of pork barrel earmarks Sarah Palin sought and secured as governor of Alaska, including the “Bridge To Nowhere” that Palin and McCain lied about and are still lying about in public. Here was his clear and irrefutable statement:
Palin’s comments came after McCain sat for a feisty grilling on ABC’s “The View,” where he claimed erroneously that his running mate hadn’t sought money for such pet projects. “Not as governor she didn’t,” McCain said, ignoring the record.
It has now been a day since McCain lied this explicitly in public. And he hasn’t yet retracted his lie. This AP piece is dated as of this afternoon. Why not?
Because if he has to retract this lie, he will have to retract his multiple other lies? While the media demands that Obama respond to things he never said and never meant, McCain is not even asked to retract a bald-faced, massive, obvious, refutable lie.
In the last month, McCain has become the biggest liar in the modern history of presidential politics. He makes Bill Clinton look like George Washington.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccain-liar-who.html
http://www.stanford.edu/~corelli/borderline.html
http://www.dr-stanley-goodman.com/pdf/delusional/delusional.PDF
I can post links too!
Palin’s authenticity vs. Obama’s fleeting charisma
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=75015
Obama-Biden: Which disabled war vets will they insult next?
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/13/obama-biden-which-disabled-war-vets-will-they-insult-next/
Oh gee… nothing biased in those links… ROFL!!!
BUSH 7, TERRORISTS 0
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Oh gee… nothing biased in Linda’s links either… ROFL!!!
Idiot.
More stupidty. Cosmos, I am sure you will be elated.
Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
Nathan only likes the Jury System, when the Jury agrees with him… LOL It just keeps getting better and better!! ROFL!!!
Michelle Malkin needs to read this >>>>
http://www.dr-stanley-goodman.com/pdf/delusional/delusional.PDF
Chas,
I don’t believe I said one thing about the article other than saying Cosmos would be elated.
Yet you presume to speak for me and what I like and don’t like?
Try again, Idiot.
Well, let’s see?? When was the last time you agreed with Cosmos on anything?? Was that the last time Hell threatened to freeze over?? So, based on the topic of your link, I dont see what you are sqwaking about now…. Just seems to prove me right… again….
Oh, yea, and if first you dont succeed, reduce your integrity even farther by resorting to name calling, and ad hominem…
Yea, GO for it, boy!!!
Nathaniel, your post and link….simply excellent!!!
Palin’s authenticity vs. Obama’s fleeting charisma
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=75015
Chas I have never agreed with Cosmos. Do I get a prize or is this a one man contest?
So, THIS is an authentic news item?? Looks like political diatribe from RUSH’S Brother!!
He is a bigger idiot that Brother Rush!!
“Palin’s authenticity vs. Obama’s fleeting charisma
Posted: September 12, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
“Many Democrats, including Joe Biden himself, are second-guessing Barack Obama’s selection of Biden, but I have to wonder how many are having even greater misgivings about Obama leading the ticket.”
This would be funny, if it wasnt such a LIE on the part of the Reich wing Propagandists >>>>
“When you look at Palin, you don’t get the idea that she believes she is superior to other human beings or “the one we’ve been waiting for.”"
CAN ANYBODY ON THE RIGHT LINK TO WHERE OBAMA SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THIS LIE OF A LINE THAT HE IS “the one we’ve been waiting for.” ???
FIND THE LINK…. I DARE ANY ONE OF YOU TO FIND THAT LINK…. WHY??? BECAUSE IT IS A TOTAL FICTION OF THE REICH WING FACIST WANNABE’S OF THE RUSH MENTALITY, AND THE ROVE SCHEME THAT IS DRIVING THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN…
KARL ROVE BE DAMNED!!! WHAT A FRIGGIN LYING PHONY!!! NOT TO MENTION CRIMINAL!!
Chas,
In his Super Tuesday speech:
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/06/raw-data-text-of-barack-obamas-super-tuesday-speech/
RIGHT!!! He didnt say HE was the one…. He said WE — American People —
So, you see how you people LIE and twist TRUTH, to make it work for you favor??? And you dont even CARE that you LIE!!!
GO SUCK A DUCK OR SOMETHING… Maybe that will catch your ADD interest!! You people make me SICK!!!
LIMBAUGH invented totally the “Obama Messiah” BS…. NOT Obama… And then once Limbaugh got it started, THEN he blamed it on Obama!! Another RIGHT WING FACIST LIE!!!
“ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE” was what you asked for and is what you got Chas.
Chas,
Here is some more for you:
Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, “This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for,” adding: “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068.html?nav=hcmodule
Nathan, your reference to Obama’s speech is not even REMOTELY CLOSE to what the Reich Wing Facists keep prattling on about….
And… furthermore, Obama IS a Symbol of a possibility… not THE possibility… but a Symbol of what the People can do and be…
You are STILL Magnifying the LIE!!! Even when it is thrown in your face, you STILL LIE about it… You are all a truck load of BS!!! Every last one of you LYING conniving Nut Bags!!! LIARS ALL!!!
Nathan, SO FAR, your links re only serving to PROVE what I am saying… You better try something different!! ROFLMAO!!!!
Seems like he was using the “royal we” to me.
That’s because you didnt listen to, OR read the speech!! Your ignorance of the speech is SO evident…. and that ignorance fuels your continued LIES!! Hope you are having fun with your LIES….
Good night; good luck; God bless —-
Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings ALL!!
Blssings on all the hurricane survivors!!
So mote it be!!
=========================================
Nathan, this means I am leaving now… So, please dont talk to my empty chair like you usually do!! LOL
Good night folks!!
Just having fun watching you get all riled up.
Nathaniel posted September 13, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“More stupidty. Cosmos, I am sure you will be elated.
Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law”
———–
Nathaniel. . . “stupidity” is your blind belief in nutcases, like the AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST Dennis Avery, who LIE about AGW science, and AGW scientists.
“Stupidity” is Nathaniel’s blind belief that human-added GHG’s will not impact our Earth’s climate.
“Stupidity” is Nathaniel’s not understanding the reason for, and significance of, that verdict.
Chas,
Are you sure? Lets be honest here, you usually always come back after you say goodnight.
okobserver posted September 13, 2008 at 10:46 pm
“Chas I have never agreed with Cosmos.”
—————-
But okobserver “agrees” with Sarah Palin that 100’s of small “plots” of gravel, scattered ANYWHERE across 1,500,000 acres, with a grand total of 2,000 acres, equals one “little 2,000-acre plot of land”.
Here’s a speculative map of those many scattered “plots”, which okobserver insists is just one “little 2,000-acre plot of land”.
http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.html
I’m going to present to you the Bush Doctrine of the most profitable forex traders. It is Wilson’s of the Bush Doctrine to our lives and country, but I’ll do my best to explain. Journalistic circles: This is the Bush Doctrine.
Did you see it ? :) It’s simply beautyfull thing [u]http://adventures.110mb.com[/u]