I'm tired of the BS double standard

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah, ok, as if I'm to believe the vile, sub-human wastes of life who frequent DailyKos and Democratic Underground have never gone to an Obama rally and NEVER exclaimed their desire for Republican candidates to pass on to the afterlife...

This only happens at a Palin speech....yup...ok...I'm gullible...I'll surely believe this hogwash:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/10/the_worst_angels_of_our_nature.html

The left wing MSM sure is laying it on thick these days...I'm sure some of this is going to stick and cost McCain even more...but anything goes as long as the Messiah gets elected....

[HUSKER55]

and they wonder why the jobs are going overseas.

Wait till Obama takes office. There is going to be a sucking sound like you ain't never heard before as jobs head south.

[ddog]

what! we still got jobs here that can head there?

I think not.

Certainly not in another month or so.

You can say alot of things about Bush, job creator isn't one of them.

Nobody could do worse on this front.

Not that any prez has much to do with it anyway.

[sammy the sage]

""and they wonder why the jobs are going overseas.""

Everybody LOVES to say this....

When in FACT the TRUTH is...American's do NOT want to work for ANYTHING......

As a business owner...have had only ONE employee under 40 last more than 3 month's in the LAST 4 years...

AND of those OVER 40....only 1/4 th WILLING to do ANYTHING extra to MAKE more!

It has NOTHING to to do w/political party's...but MORE about ETHICS and MORALS...

We DESERVE what's COMING as a nation.... :( :mad:

[HUSKER55]

In my neck of the woods GM is closing a plant that builds motors. Said it cost too much to upgrade.

The equipment is being sent to Mexico for a plant down there, according to the employee I was talking to.

That is 3500 jobs in on fell swoop. Gm says they are going under but they have the goods to build elsewhere.

They call it globlization. Get ready cause here it comes.

[pandy]

This hatred and smear of Palin by the media, and others on the left is one of the most puzzling things I've ever seen in politics. Here we have a hard-working, strong-willed woman with the highest approval rating of any Gov. in the country and appears to be a great mom. Anyone who doesn't like Palin either doesn't like woman in general or just hates Conservatives.

[ddog]

nobody cares about Palin.
nobody likes or dislikes her, it's all about power and how to get it.
the "who" of it is a distraction.



You don't recall how Regan was demonized.
This is nothing.
I don't recall anyone saying she is a nuke nutjob fixing to blow up the world?

at least that was a fight worth having unlike all this angst about nothing.

trivial on all sides.

[ArlJim78]

I remember very well how they talked about Reagan, it was very bad for the standards of 20 years ago. can you imagine what they would say now?

Reagan was smart though, like Palin. he just stayed positive and ignored the lunatics. it drives them nuts.

[ddog]

I am not sure Regan could get elected now , if he had to start from the Cal gov point again.

Not a good thing imo.


I think he would have been savaged over lots of the actions he took while gov and his Dim past.

[ArlJim78]

of course Reagan couldn't get elected now. the media is referring to McCain as a far right wing guy. many of us republicans thought he was a closet Democrat, and he's called a right wing wacko? everything has turned into the bizzaro world.

marxists are now mainstream americans. everyone get out your copies of Das Kapital, you'd better start brushing up on it. we've got to start spreading the wealth around as chairman Obama says.

[Bubba X]

Yes, the media has mistreated and beaten Sarah Palin like an Alaskan baby seal. The media sure did her wrong when they:

First, asked her about the Bush Doctrine. Her response? "What part?" That was just awful! How dare they!!!

Next, they tried to fool Sarah! They dumbed down the questions and tried to fool her good when they asked her to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, other than Roe. That was preposterous! When she answered, "I'll getcha some of those and get right back to ya," Sarah did the absolute right thing!! How DARE they!! We non-Palin fans are lucky she didn't shout out to Wasilla's 3rd-grade class to put us in our place! Whew, that was darn-tootin' close!

Finally, someone had the gall to ask Sarah Palin to name a specific publication she reads. That was too hard! And Sarah was not fooled. We are lucky she answered as she did and didn't tell us a all piss off and mind our own gosh darn business.

A heartbeat away.

[bigmack]

A heartbeat away.
If nothing else, Gawd how I would savor the thought of your panties, and those like you, in a bind for at least 4 years. :lol: :lol:

[Bubba X]

I would savor the thought of your panties at least 4 years. :lol: :lol:

I suppose any pesky tire tracks would be pretty much gone after 4 years. Enjoy!:ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

First, asked her about the Bush Doctrine. Her response? "What part?" That was just awful! How dare they!!!The sad part is, her response was more appropriate than Gibson's. But this little fact will remain under reported by the MSM....you betcha!

From good ol' Wiki:

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy) principles of United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) president George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks). The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to aggressively secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-0)

Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war), which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventionism) that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)); a policy of encouraging democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East), as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral) way.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-3) Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council) text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NSC-4)

Thus, you can see that Palin's response was completely appropriate given the ambiguous definition of the Bush Doctrine itself, as outlined above.

[ddog]

The sad part is, her response was more appropriate than Gibson's. But this little fact will remain under reported by the MSM....you betcha!

From good ol' Wiki:



Thus, you can see that Palin's response was completely appropriate given the ambiguous definition of the Bush Doctrine itself, as outlined above.


Ok, I grant you all points, but REALLY, couldn't you or I restate the question , give our meaning of it and then our reply, really you think that's a bridge too far for someone in that position, thinking on your feet???

Wouldn't you be able to sum it up with , as i understand it we are stating the right to a set of preclusive actions, given the new nature of the threats we see and yada yada yada....


Not a tough one at all.

[Tom]

Who cares what the Bush Doctrine is? She will be working under the McCain Doctrine. Stupid question from a poor excuse of a newsman. Charlie was hard pressed to make coffee for the morning show gals. That was his "peter principal." :lol:

[Bubba X]

LOL, "a stupid question from a poor excuse of a newsman." Sez who?

Well now, that's not really the point is it? If she cannot manage a clear, concise and articulate response to softball questions like "What do you think about the Bush Doctrine?", "What Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?" or "What do you read?" in an unscripted environment, how in the world is she going to manage to make decisions in real-time on matters like, oh, let's say, going to war and sending our sons and daughters into harm's way when there are no teleprompters, scripted speeches or 72 hours to cram available?

That is the real issue now, isn't it?

A heartbeat away.

Again, LOL.... It's Charlie Gibson's fault! :bang: :bang:

[russowen77]

Getting back to the original statement.

Do y'all think the Secret Service is run by liberal Democrats?

The only two I know are about the most conservative folks I know. They won't say their preference of course but the wives all have McCain stickers on their cars.

I was just curious.

[Tom]

LOL, "a stupid question from a poor excuse of a newsman." Sez who?

Well now, that's not really the point is it? If she cannot manage a clear, concise and articulate response to softball questions like "What do you think about the Bush Doctrine?",


Did you miss PA's post? Her answer was right on. Charlie had no clue what he was asking. And for the record, says me.

BTW, her being a heartbeat away is no issue, the issue is the racist, lying, terror-loving POS who might be the heartbeat.

[PaceAdvantage]

That is the real issue now, isn't it?Actually, it's not the issue, as she is running for VP, not top dog. Now Obama on the other hand...

[ddog]

and this gets right back to an issue i have always had, why are not the prez candidates required to give two or three people that they would look to appoint to the BIG positions before the vote.

I think the best evaluation of a leader is those he would pick to advise him.

They are going to work for us, we don't have a right to that info?