"That's kind of like getting out there on the playground with a bunch of kids ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead and punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to me.'"
More grist for John McWhorter's theory that Sarah Palin is childish.
April 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
293 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 293 of 293Another 300+ comment Palin thread. NID, good job Althouse.
Synova advised: "What we should not do is be good on some fantastical notion that our goodness can be used to persuade someone else to change their policy. It can't and it won't."
As evidenced by the responses of Iran, NK, and Russia to Obama's "change in tone". He softened "ours", they hardened theirs.
Funny how that works.
FLS - so Israel is a rogue state? By whose definition? The Alinsky-crazy crowd? I'm sure Rev. Wright would agree with that. Mmm mmm mmm.
fls--for starters I disagree with your premise that Israel is "a roguen nuclear state." The most important imperative is to ensure your existential survival. The state of Israel does that. Now we can disagree on other actions, but survival is the first goal.
I assume your assertion about "rogue nuclear state" refers to their non signatory status on the NPT. Pretty shallow, in my opinion. but your call.
The real question is why does FLS want to exterminate all the Jews in Israel?
Michael observed: "He is turning off lots more people than he would if he simply stuck with the higher road that previous presidents have in not singling out individuals for criticism. For a smart guy this is not smart. He already has all the snarky people who think that Sara Palin is the second dumbest person ever born, he doesn't gain anything from this approach."
Couldn't agree more. He should let his media goons and legions of zombies on the internet do his light work on Palin. Right now, she is not a viable political figure, yet he's making her into one.
This would work if his approval ratings hadn't tanked. When you focus on your predecessor and your defeated opponent, instead of what's really pissing everyone off (unemployment, economy), you're pissing in the wind.
I keep hearing about this guy's brilliance, but have yet to witness him display it.
FLS--I really am curious as to why in this particular discussion about american nuclear policy and Mr Obama and Ms Palin, the subject of Israel is even relevant? Please do explain for my enlightenment.
I mean Cedarford isnt here for Jew Bashing-are you his surrogate?
Question to you:
What do you think is Obama's end goal in this change of policy?
What's his objective?
Who is he trying to entice?
Sorry... I knew there was something I still needed to do... call the pharmacy... walk the dog... oh yeah, answer madawaskan!
In part, I think he's doing what he and Sec'y Clinton say he's doing: Taking a small, small step in the direction of his (ridiculously unrealistic) goal of a nuke-free world. I think he takes his Nobel Peace Prize as a kind of mission from the right kind of people to bring about peace through nonproliferation and disarmament. Good luck, I say. But don't bet a lot on it ever happening.
Secondly, I think he's got this idea that Russia will at some point become grateful enough at his concessions that they will actually do something meaningful w/r/t Iran's nukes.
Some of what's on his mind is, I suspect, an anachronism. He's still fighting the political battles of the 1980s. A good liberal president back then would have negotiated a nuclear freeze or something. At the time, Reagan was accused of not even meeting with the Soviet leadership. '84 is one of those campaigns that liberals replay in their minds, trying to make it come out differently.
Thus, I think part of it is vanity. Obama has probably always thought if he ever became president, he'd pursue peace. Well, now he's president, and this agreement makes him feel like he's pursuing peace. At a time when he is fighting a nasty war in Afghanistan, killing innocent people as we try to chase terror leaders in Pakistan, flailing with respect to the biggest security challenge of these years, Iran's drive to get nukes, and behaving with clueless clumsiness on the Israel/Palestine issue, he probably needs a morale boost.
One thing is clear -- Obama is very sensitive. This is why Palin can keep drawing him into these dumb skirmishes. She's read him right. He hates being criticized. He likes talking about the things he's accomplished and wants to be admired for them. This is, in his mind, an accomplishment.
former law student guffaws: "Excuse me, it's OK for Israel to be a rogue nuclear state because why, exactly? Because they occupy the moral high ground?
Please phrase your answer as persuasively as possible."
Excuse me, but before I can answer your questions by asking you to re-read my original response to you, why don't you define rogue state?
Please phrase your answer as persuasively as possible.
(I can almost smell the anti-zionist rant approaching.)
John Stodder-
First I just wanted to post this immediately-
Sorry... I knew there was something I still needed to do... call the pharmacy... walk the dog... oh yeah, answer madawaskan!
LOL!
Ugh I always miss a lot of comments here-because blogger loads weird for me sometimes particularly lately.
Hopefully you don't think I was getting in your face-I'm truly baffled as to what he is doing.
It looked like you might have "cherched" through Max Boot so I was interested in your take on all of this...
I posted twice just because I assumed you might have missed it like I do most of the time...
Anyways-I'm going back to read the rest of your comment-it's taking me awhile to absorb but my first impression seems to be -you can get inside of what Obama's rational might be-it's foreign to me.
I'm back to reading your response.
I find this whole brush-up hilarious. The score here: Palin 2, Obama 0. As both are basketball players, my analogy is that she shot and scored, then stole the ball back from him and scored again. And I suspect that if he doesn't quit this game, she is going to continue to do so. She can think on her feet and respond immediately far better than he can, and as long as he and his people try to play her game, they are likely to continue losing most of the time.
I think the poster above who posited that she has the best political instincts since Bill Clinton has it right.
Here, she made an analogy explaining to the American people something that was not that clear to them, in a way that they could relate to. She seems to have a genius this way, and especially in how quickly she can do it. And the problem for the Administration is that their only real response would be that her analogy ignores a lot of nuance. Well, that nuance is what the analogy cut through. So, they need to come up with an analogy to combat hers, and they haven't. Name calling won't work, except with his netroots base, and they aren't going to win him the next couple of elections. For the rest of the public, what they are going to take away from this is her analogy and his mean spirited response to it.
What I think is going to make this sort of response by the Administration even worse is that it means that the next time something like this comes up, more of the Lame Stream Media, and not just Fox News, are going to go to her first for the fast quip, because that is where the news is going to be. Much better for the Administration for the LSM to be going to the Mitt Romneys who have to think through their responses first. Then, the contrast between a hard hitting woman and a meandering POTUS won't be so striking.
Ms Madawaskan--I generally find Mr Stoddards posts are well worth looking at in detail
and I too have been bedeviled by the blogger thing.
cheers
Dust Bunny Queen writes of Obama:
Epic fail as a salesman.
That's fucking hilarious. Dumb, but hilarious. Was 2006-2008 that long ago?
John Stodder-
Do you think it might be too cynical to think this is all a Rube Goldberg like effort to gain leverage on Isreal....
I really can't fathom what he's up to-or what result he thinks this would be worth it for-
he can't possibly think he is going to get Iran to agree to the non-proliferation treaty-so I'm trying to credit him with some other motive.
But-reading your response-his own personal vanity bolstered by a Nobel Peace prize -his legacy might be all the motive he needs.
[yuck. hurl-o-rama]-I think you could be on to it-the motivation.
One thing is clear -- Obama is very sensitive. This is why Palin can keep drawing him into these dumb skirmishes. She's read him right. He hates being criticized. He likes talking about the things he's accomplished and wants to be admired for them. This is, in his mind, an accomplishment.
And, I think this is part of why he is in trouble here. He is playing by her rules, and as a result, is going to lose.
In my previous post, I noted that the two of them were basketball players. Yet, when she was asked if she would play against him, she said no, that his height was too much of an advantage. Well, here is a situation where he should have the height advantage, due to his position as POTUS, and yet lets himself get suckered into a game where she has the advantage.
Do you think it might be too cynical to think this is all a Rube Goldberg like effort to gain leverage on Isreal....
Yeah, but Bibi didn't take the bait.
FLS...The Jews have a right to nukes for protection because a Jew invented them and shared that knowledge with the US so that Germany did not get them constructed first and annihilate the US. Germany already had the delivery systems ready and the will to use them on the Jew Lover FDR.So we have unhesitatingly returned the favor and let the Jews have their own nukes, that is we did until the first Muslim President got his marching orders.
Daniel--do you suppose you could make an observation absent "fucking?"
Its really crude and suggests you are perhaps in the 9th grade.
Alex-
OK crap I just realized that I flipped around the vowels in Israel-time to pack it in-gad! All my vowels are off their leash. Gawd I hate when I do that.
Bibi didn't bite the bait; that's pretty much my take on it too.
Shi-----oooot, are we not supposed to use that sorta language 'round here?
I'm still kinda new to these parts and saw plenty of it from all directions, so's I figger'd it was ok.
Gmay--having spent 25 years in the cavalry I have a wonderful command of anglo-saxon hypenated words--Nahhh--I was jabbing daniel--I really dont have an aversion to expressive anglo saxon.
so Israel is a rogue state? By whose definition
Israel is a rogue nuclear state. Note that as a state possessing nuclear weapons in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, should Israel mount a conventional warfare attack on us, we could respond with nuclear weapons.
former law student supposes: "Israel is a rogue nuclear state. Note that as a state possessing nuclear weapons in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, should Israel mount a conventional warfare attack on us, we could respond with nuclear weapons."
This should be fun!
1) Prove Israel is a nuclear state.
2) Is Israel a signatory of the NNPT?
But FLS...Nuking Israel is Iran's job. And do you know what Israel means by the Samson option?
why in this particular discussion about american nuclear policy and Mr Obama and Ms Palin, the subject of Israel is even relevant?
tradguy brought it up and I thought it was relevant, because Israel's possession of nuclear weapons weakens our no-nukes-for-Iran position. Going back to childhood arguments: "But it's OK when Israel does it! Why can't I do it?"
FLS said:
"former law student said...
so Israel is a rogue state? By whose definition
Israel is a rogue nuclear state. Note that as a state possessing nuclear weapons in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, should Israel mount a conventional warfare attack on us, we could respond with nuclear weapons."
1. It has been discussed, but not incorporated into the NPT that non-nuclear states are protected from nuclear attack.
2. The "deal" if you will, is that non-nuclear states get technical assistance in the peacefull use of the atom in exchange for verifiably not pursuing weapons.
A better definition of a rogue is a state that has actually signed the NPT (unlike Israel), gotten nuclear help (IBID) and then pursued the bomb. Israel has one out of three.
Israel already pays this price by not being able to purchase US technical equipment related to atomic energy and the recent denial of visas to Israeli atomic scientists.
Alpha: Conservatives don't give a second thought to mass murder by nuclear weapons - killing hundreds of thousands of people - even over something as out of proportion as a cyberattack.
Bullshit. We had this discussion on this very blog re Iranian nukes. You Alpha, yes YOU said that MAD was enough of a deterrent to prevent a launch against the West. I responded that its immoral to incinerate 25 million arabs because of one madman.
You're SUCH a lying weasel Alpha. You have no values and no morals, and your ethics are entirely situational. What a tool you are.
1) Prove Israel is a nuclear state.
Mordechai Vanunu spent 18 yrs in an Israeli prison (half of which was solitary confinement) for detailing their atomic capabilities to a London paper. He is also forbidden to leave, or speak with anyone outside his country. He can't even go to an internet chat room without written permission first.
1) Prove Israel is a nuclear state.
Seymour Hersh did a far better job than I could possibly do. Have you been to Dimona lately?
http://www.amazon.com/Samson-Option-Israels-Nuclear-American/dp/0394570065
2) Is Israel a signatory of the NNPT?
No, and why not?
2) Is Israel a signatory of the NNPT?
No, and why not?
Simple:
It is not in their interest to be so.
The Ώne: I will not engage in debate with THAT woman. (Apologies to McW.)
Roger J to fls
I mean Cedarford isnt here for Jew Bashing-are you his surrogate?
You’re talking to former cedarford student
2) Is Israel a signatory of the NNPT?
No, and why not?
Who cares? What is so important about being a signatory to NNPT? Does that mean Israel is a pariah state according to FLS? Come on FLS - lay your cards on the table. What should we do about Israel?
So none of our libtards can prove Israel is a nuclear state.
And none of them can define what "rogue nuclear state" means.
This is what happens when Libtards cut-n-paste swill fed to them by HuffPo. And use big words they dont understand.
Whats key here is that Obama has signed onto the "no disproportionate response" nonsense. What a fool.
former law student imagines: "...because Israel's possession of nuclear weapons weakens our no-nukes-for-Iran position. Going back to childhood arguments: "But it's OK when Israel does it! Why can't I do it?"
Your still weak argument notwithstanding, let's say Israel disarms their alleged nuclear arsenal, do you seriously think Ahmedinjad and the Ayatollahs are going to stand up and say "Gosh, you guys are so admirable with your moral consistency and all that, we're gonna scrap our plans to go nuclear, and we're really sorry about all that talk of driving you into the sea and stuff, and by stuff, we mean funding all those terrorists to blow up pizza parlors and buses. Our bad!"?
So let me guess, everything's kosher with you if Israel just signs on the NNPT then? Serious question.
You’re talking to former cedarford student
With the tremendous accomplishments of every President since Reagan at eliminating the threat of nuclear destruction, I would hate for their great works to be undone by a spat between two groups of self-righteous Middle Eastern fanatics.
If Iran had had the bomb first I would ask them to disarm in order to persuade Israel it did not need nuclear weapons.
I'm not happy about India and Pakistan, either, but at least neither is rattling sabres at the other.
FLS... The purpose of all war is to steal stuff, kill possible retaliation forces, and destroy the enemies existence. In those cases we do not fall for the fairness idea that our attacker has rights to have equal weapons and no avoidable harm done to him. In defensive war, the purpose is to kill the threat source first, but the let them keep their stuff and not destroy them. Plans for a defensive war are different from an offensive war. Think it thru. We are not a legalistic debating society when we reach this level of killing for survival. Israel can do us more harm than we can do Israel. Hide and watch.
garage "Polanski" mahal connects the dots: "Mordechai Vanunu spent 18 yrs in an Israeli prison (half of which was solitary confinement) for detailing their atomic capabilities to a London paper. He is also forbidden to leave, or speak with anyone outside his country. He can't even go to an internet chat room without written permission first."
Well there ya have it, proof positive! I think you need to head to the UN and clue 'em in big guy!
I really hate repeating myself:
1) Prove Israel is a nuclear state.
Former law student asks: "Have you been to Dimona lately?"
Nope. Have you? Try again.
(By the way, book reviews and synopses don't cut it for legit sources.)
I'll get to #2 next.
Alpha wrote:
You [Synova] also said:
"What is naive and rather stupid, is the assumption that we will never have the need to use them."
From that I said:
"You say it's likely these will be used some day."
No, that's not a reasonable translation at all. To say one wants a tool on hand because one shouldn't assume that tool will never be needed IS NOT the same thing as saying one thinks it's likely the tool will be used.
At the risk of committing the sin of using an analogy from everyday life, I have fire extinguishers on each floor of my (rambling, very old) house, because I can't assume I'll never need them.
However, I think it's highly UNLIKELY I'll ever need or use them. (And I surely never want to have the need to use them, either, for obvious reasons.)
If you were to recast my "because I can't assume I'll never need them" as "so, you think it's likely you'll use them," you will have expressed the OPPOSITE of what I actually think with regard to likelihood.
That's what you did w/r/t Synova's (QUITE CLEAR) statements, Alpha, and that's why your translation was NOT accurate--or fair.
former law student steps on it: "[me] - 2) Is Israel a signatory of the NNPT?
[fls]No..."
Bzzzzt, stop right there. Scroll up to this little gem you wrote earlier:
"Note that as a state possessing nuclear weapons in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, should Israel mount a conventional warfare attack on us, we could respond with nuclear weapons."
Ok, so you're now saying that Israel is defying a treaty they never signed. Would you care to explain that, correct yourself, or just not be taken seriously?
Continuing on, because I like to address everything instead of conveniently ignore it:
"...and why not?"
As someone else already said, it's not in their interests to do so. But I'll bet dollars to donuts you've got some really cool conjecture you're gonna posit as a real answer. (Just don't use another book review/synopsis, ok? I appreciate the laugh it elicits, but it wastes time.)
Daniel said...
Dust Bunny Queen writes of Obama:
Epic fail as a salesman.
That's fucking hilarious. Dumb, but hilarious. Was 2006-2008 that long ago?
Well, 2006 - 8 was David Axelrod selling The Zero as a moderate American.
2009 - 10 was The Zero selling a lot of National Socialist policies as good for America.
Not so dumb, not so hilarious, and a lot longer ago than you'd like.
"Wanna hear my how a mutual fund is like a bag of microwave popcorn analogy?"
Duh!!!! :-)
Sarah Palin can kill a moose, skin it and serve it to you as a delicious stew ...
GMay, to bring this all back on topic:
“The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.”
If a state is
a non nuclear weapons state and
party to the NNT and
in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations, then
the US will not use nuclear weapons against it.
But, Israel is
a nuclear weapons state,
not party to the NNT, therefore,
the US may use nuclear weapons against it.
FLS:
But, Israel is
a nuclear weapons state,
not party to the NNT, therefore,
the US may use nuclear weapons against it.
Wow FLS is really an immoral cretin.
"Epic fail as a salesman" A good salesman is able to sell his product over and over. It remains to be seen if he can run a long con.
GMay, some reading for you:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/
Alex failed logic.
Dust Bunny Queen writes of Obama:
Epic fail as a salesman.
That's fucking hilarious. Dumb, but hilarious. Was 2006-2008 that long ago?
"Well, 2006 - 8 was David Axelrod selling The Zero as a moderate American.
2009 - 10 was The Zero selling a lot of National Socialist policies as good for America."
Correctamundo. Obama can't sell his way out of a wet paper bag.
In fact the more he talks the more we the marks....I mean customers....are backing away from him and his sales pitch. Cap and Trade, Socialized Medicine all epic fail in trying to sell it to the rubes.
... is the day we should just call china [sic] and tell them to run this country.
As much as we are in debt to the Chinese, the US of A may reach that state without Sarah Palin having the codes for the "football."
FLS said,
"...should Israel mount a conventional warfare attack on us, we could respond with nuclear weapons."
Putting aside the fact that this would never happen, the old nuclear policy would have allowed this too. That is, we had a policy that any attack on our interests could result in nuclear retaliation. The NPT has no regulations in this area one way or the other. So your point seems to be what, exactly?
>This just in: The Cold War is over! We won. They lost.
I think Putin wants a do-over.
FLS - Israel has allegedly had nukes for about 40 years - during that time they fought a war for their survival (1973 - and by survival I mean facing genocide, a second holocaust, driving the Jews into the sea. etc), yet despite almost losing that war in the opening days, they did not use their alleged nukes. Since then Israel has been attacked by all manner of terrorists funded, armed and dispatched by their extremely belligerent neighbors, including Iran. In 1991, Israel was repeatedly struck by ballistic missiles launched by a state with which Israel was not even at war - and Israel did not even respond with conventional means. In all that time, Israel has not only not used their alleged nukes, they have never even "rattled" them publicly. Israel is not a member of the NPT, and thus were they to have nukes, as a non-party, they would not be in violation of that treaty.
Since the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has used all manner of chemical weapons in its war against Iraq, it has sponsored all manner of terrorists who have perpetrated horrific acts of terror against US, Israeli and other targets around the globe. It has repeatedly used its Navy to launch unprovoked attacks against the naval and merchant shipping of the United States and its various gulf neighbors. For decades now the more-or-less duly elected leaders of Iran have promised to "wipe Israel off the map", to "exterminate the Zionist entity" and have invited martyrdom as the rational price for such noble acts. They have literally promised, on international TV, that the day they get the A-Bomb is the day they nuke Israel. They are also a member of the NPT, yet are in flagrant violation of its rules, as has been repeatedly documented. They also have a population over 10x that of Israel, and a land mass that is exponentially larger. And a foot on the Strait of Hormuz.
Almost the entire Arab world, plus a good chunk of the non-Arab Islamic world would like nothing more than to see every Israeli dead, and Israel deleted from the world's maps, and despite Israel's somewhat inflated battlefield reputation, they have the conventional military means to do so, if they ever really try. And Israel cannot be sure that the man in the WH would stop them. Thus Israel has an, alleged, nuclear deterrence while its neighbors have a conventional deterrence.
You false equivalence is as stunning as it is vile. FOAD.
1) Prove Israel is a nuclear state.
Dude, I think I just did. Guy goes to paper, tells of nuclear program, and subsequently goes to prison 18 years. And gets muzzled til he dies. You;'re fucking funny though, but I has to tend to this beer.
Garage: Does muzzling someone mean they told the truth? You mean Ted Kascinski was right and we all need to throw these damn computers out?!?!? Sheesh. Who knew?
I do salute your dedication to the beer at hand, though. And in that I shall join you.
I'll tackle the easiest one first.
"Dude, I think I just did. Guy goes to paper, tells of nuclear program, and subsequently goes to prison 18 years. And gets muzzled til he dies. You;'re fucking funny though, but I has to tend to this beer."
If you're half as bad at drinking beer as you are at defining what "proof" is, you might want to stop after one.
holdfast, you're casting pearls.
You gotta dumb it down for him. I'll see if I can do that in my next post.
I see that using bold typeface has become the genteel alternative to SCREAMING BY TYPING IN ALL CAPS!!!11!!1!
@ Holdfast...That was well said. Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons. The middle east has had a single nuclear power called Israel for 40 years with peace among terrorists but extermination. IMO Obama plans now are to replace that only middle eastern nuclear power with a UN force complete with a massive UN occupation Army. If Israel does not submit to that, than Obama as a good Muslim will withdraw the rest of US support not already withdrawn. But Israel will not agree to that suicide pact, so they instead will take out Iran and thereby replace the US as the middle-east's dominant player. The only question to be answered is whether Obama will follow thruon his threats to shoot Israeli planes going into action against his Muslim friends in Iran out of the sky. No wonder Palin's big mouth revealing his lies is panicking Obama.
former law student flails: "GMay, to bring this all back on topic:
[snip]"
Translation: "I was talking out of my ass, you caught me, and I'm not going to answer a single question you've asked me. As a matter of fact, I'm not going to answer any question anyone asks me, I'm just going to red herring the shit out of everyone..."
Garage: Does muzzling someone mean they told the truth?
Ah yeah! See Jackson, Michael, on payoffs to families where he spent the weekend with their kids, O'Reilly, Bill, for phone conversations with female staff, etc etc etc. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
Plenty of people have all kinds of opinions and even detailed estimates on Israels nukes. And yet this guy is only one that spends 18 yrs in prison and muzzled for life for it? Put it this way: Would he have gone to prison for telling the world Israel didn't have any nukes? Of course that says nothing about whether they are entitled to have them, or need them, considering their nasty neighbors.
former law student produces: "GMay, some reading for you:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/
Have you actually read this book, or is it just the best link you found on a search engine? I decided to dig into those links a bit and I was struck by how eerily similar all the "evidence" was to the Hussein's Iraq, and look how that turned out.
So, do you have anything that doesn't just try to fill in the blanks?
And then, of course, there's this photo essay.
If Iran had had the bomb first I would ask them to disarm in order to persuade Israel it did not need nuclear weapons.
Hahahahahahahhh hah . h. .h.a..
Good night all.
garage: "Put it this way: Would he have gone to prison for telling the world Israel didn't have any nukes?
Of course! He couldn't possibly have gotten punished for identifying himself as a security breach could he? U.S. government employees have received similar or worse punishments for revealing less damaging info. Of course, there's never been a case of a security breach overselling their info now has there?
Of course that says nothing about whether they are entitled to have them, or need them, considering their nasty neighbors."
Hey, I agree completely. Personally, I feel safe in my belief they have them too. But I also recognize its a belief. If you think, based on the information that's available, that Israel has nukes, then I'm sure you thought Saddam had WMDs.
Actually, it is not Palin that is being childish. It is Palin who is playing the "Child" card.
There's a narrative that Barack Obama is a Man Child. Limbaugh has nurtured this narrative.
Bachmann brilliantly resonated this theme with Hannity when she responded that as a nation, we have to be "adults". Once again, underlining Obama's "Child" status.
Follow that thread. It leads to 2012.
. But I also recognize its a belief. If you think, based on the information that's available, that Israel has nukes, then I'm sure you thought Saddam had WMDs.
If Saddam had enough WMDs to worry about, Israel would have been the first to know, and act. The fact Israel didn't act tells me no, they knew Iraq didn't. And us for that matter.
In my humble opinion as always!
I highly recommend the 2010 AVN Awards on right now to anyone that has upper Showtime cable. especially in HD. Like right now, turn it!
GM "If Saddam had enough WMDs to worry about, Israel would have been the first to know, and act. The fact Israel didn't act tells me no, they knew Iraq didn't. And us for that matter."
Nice dodge, but I'l indulge anyway. Considering Israel had an established history of displaying restraint when it came to Hussein's antics, I'd say your observation is a little weak.
If Saddam had enough WMDs to worry about, Israel would have been the first to know, and act. The fact Israel didn't act tells me no, they knew Iraq didn't. And us for that matter.
I don't buy that. Earlier, yes. But at that time, we had pretty much eliminated any delivery system that Iraq could have utilized to hit Israel, were maintaining a no-fly zone over a decent chunk of the country, and had AWACS, etc. flying around the country on a pretty constant basis making sure that nothing of note got airborne.
I think, for the decade or so between when the two George Bushes went to war with Iraq, Israel was in a position that Iraq would have had a hard time hitting them without going through us first. (And, the opposite was also probably somewhat true too).
I really don't think that anyone here knows all that much about what Israel knew at that time. My point is only that your facts really don't necessarily lead to your conclusion.
Daniel said...
Dust Bunny Queen writes of Obama:
Epic fail as a salesman.
That's fucking hilarious. Dumb, but hilarious. Was 2006-2008 that long ago?
It's easy to be a masterful salesman when you have a marketing team designing your logos and slogans and controlling every bit of the message. People don't see past the veneer.
It's quite different when it's just you and the camera and your true nature comes to light. At that point we can clearly see the snakeoil salesman who suckered us into buying his worthless wares really isn't all that after all.
"...the snakeoil salesman who suckered us..."
Hey, speak for yourself! ;)
GMay said...
"...the snakeoil salesman who suckered us..."
Hey, speak for yourself! ;)
:)
I meant us as a nation. The 52 percent who bought his lies.
I saw through him pretty quickly but then I have this crazy habit of matching someones word to their rhetoric. When I saw Obama's record (and lack thereof) did not match the promises, I knew he was a hack.
But it's like I read awhile back..and this stuck with me. Obama came from the political pits of Daley's Chicago. Why did people believe he was a virgin coming out of that whorehouse? That he was somehow kept pristine and not stained by the sewer of corruption that he was politically sired in?
Come on everyone - we aren't even to 300 comments yet, and it was originally about Sarah Palin.
Bruce Hayden said...
Come on everyone - we aren't even to 300 comments yet, and it was originally about Sarah Palin."
but she is dumb and boring and old news.....it was time months ago to move on.
sorry opushouse, but nobody is dumb and boring and old news like yourself.
notice no upper case letters
So the consensus here is Palin is wiping the floor with our potus? Yall are winning the internet war here in your own corner of the world-that is great news for Althouse fans. You dont have a leader, a party, or a
platform, so that leaves Obama doing all the real work.
It leaves you bitching on the sidelines, rooting for a celebrity. That civic enagagement is really impressive.
Bet you are sitting out the census too.
master cylinder said...
So the consensus here is Palin is wiping the floor with our potus? Yall are winning the internet war here in your own corner of the world-that is great news for Althouse fans. You dont have a leader, a party, or a
platform,
We have a platform and a party. As for leaders...I think we're seeing a few notables rise up and take a stand.
so that leaves Obama doing all the real work.
Oh yeah. Lying, campaigning and going on American Idol must really tax his long list of skills.
And by long list, I mean short list...which consists of being a political hack, self-promoting, perpetual campaigning empty suit.
It leaves you bitching on the sidelines, rooting for a celebrity.
Well the GOP has no one in any major leadership capacity right now so by default, we're on the sidelines. And that gives us the chance to watch this trainwreck unfold in slow motion without having our hands dirtied by the corruption and elitism we see going on.
Oh and is "celebrity" the latest Palin pejorative?
Maybe if you cross your fingers and click your heels three times...maybe, just maybe this one will stick!
That civic enagagement is really impressive.
I'm sure this must be a real put down in your tiny little mind. But since the President and the Senate and House leadership has scorned any kind of bi-partisan engagement while simultaneously lauding how bi-partisan they are, don't be surprised when people disengage from trying to create a dialog and turn their attention on things that will actually make a difference... like booting the lot of them out of power.
Bet you are sitting out the census too.
You'd be wrong.
But that only means your losing streak is on a role.
Err... "ROLL".
Okay, tell me about your party, platform, and leader?
Is it Palin? Is it Rebuplican? Is it Independent? Is it Galt? Is it nation buliding? Is it Beck? Is it anything?
What is this mythical movement
standing for?
How about some specifics?
I realized last night that Sarah Palin must be a racist. Just as there are no other grounds for criticizing Israel than anti-Semitism, there are no other grounds for criticizing Obama other than racism. The idea that the policies of either are wrongheaded is ridiculous and unfounded.
but she is dumb and boring and old news.....it was time months ago to move on.
Tell that to the media who can't seem to stay out of her underwear drawer, or her uterus.
master cylinder cheers: "You dont have a leader, a party, or a platform, so that leaves Obama doing all the real work."
Yeah, he's worked his ass off alright. Took him what, well over a year to get his signature piece of legislation passed with supermajorities of his own party in both houses? Bet that was real hard work, what with all the speechifying and golfing and all. (Please please please say something about obstructionist Republicans.)
Strike One...
"It leaves you bitching on the sidelines, rooting for a celebrity. That civic enagagement is really impressive."
That's interesting, I didn't see many people rooting for Palin, just making observations and keeping score.
Strike two...
master cylinder wonders: "Okay, tell me about your party, platform, and leader?"
It must suck, in 2010, not to be able to use the internet to find out basic information.
"Is it Palin?"
Ask the media. She, like Obama, is a media creation. I'm not aware of any official Republican party stance on her, but since you can't even use google, I'll hazard a guess you don't either.
"Is it Rebuplican?"
Are you fond of asking weird ass questions, or do you just sort of lose your train of thought in the middle of a post?
"Is it Independent?"
Sort of thinking out loud and answering myself here, I'm gonna go with you just being dumb.
"Is it Galt?"
Yep, dumb.
Is it nation buliding?
You'd have to ask Bill Clinton.
But answer this - who was the Democratic party's leader while Bush and the pubs were in charge? Did the Dems agree on a single platform?
Herding cats is easier than trying to get Dems to agree on anything. Hell, just look at the healthcare vote. Ooops!
Is it Beck?
You do realize that lefties are more concerned with Beck than righties right? The only real violence he seems to incite is lefties punching their computer monitors.
"Is it anything?
What is this mythical movement
standing for?
How about some specifics?"
Well ya know, they did have some Democrats vote with them on the healthcare vote. Does that answer any of your stupid questions?
Oh, and I do know that the party of unity and principles under the unquestioned leadership of Barack Obama seems to be doing a bang up job against the leaderless, directionless, and amorphous blob that is the Republican party.
Swing and a miss, steeeeeerike three!
master cylinder said...
Okay, tell me about your party, platform, and leader?
Is it Palin? Is it Rebuplican? Is it Independent? Is it Galt? Is it nation buliding? Is it Beck? Is it anything?
What is this mythical movement
standing for?
How about some specifics?
Oh brother. Transparent much?
Conservatives stand for smaller government. Strong national defense. Fiscal responsibility. Free market solutions. Individual liberty. The freedom to succeed AND fail. A return to Constitutional restraints on the government. Etc. etc.
But then... you know EXACTLY what we stand for. You just want to nitpick whatever answer I or anyone else gives and divert attention away from the empty suit in the White House right now and the horrific policies he's foisting on the people.
former law student epiphanizes: "I realized last night that Sarah Palin must be a racist. Just as there are no other grounds for criticizing Israel than anti-Semitism, there are no other grounds for criticizing Obama other than racism. The idea that the policies of either are wrongheaded is ridiculous and unfounded."
You really kicked that strawman's ass! Good job!
But on a more inquisitive note, are you saying that Sarah Palin is crafting policy? Are you saying that criticism of Palin and Obama is ridiculous and unfounded, or Israel and Obama?
It's early on a Saturday morning, so maybe my reading skills just haven't kicked in yet, but I'm having a little trouble processing your latest observation.
Okay so you are conservative-thanks for that 50 year old checklist.
What is the plan going forward?
Are you with the Republicans?
Do you support the RNC? Ron Paul?
There doesnt seem to be a collective notion inside the Tea Party about how to proceed-will they take on or be taken on by the Repubs? Maybe you need Rick Perry.
Is there anyone who is guiding this group?
You have a few precious years to get it together,
and you have accomplished nothing in the last year.
master cylinder tries again: "Okay so you are conservative-thanks for that 50 year old checklist.
Translation: I really don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, so I'm going to ignore any criticism that undermines my already shitty thinking.
"What is the plan going forward?
I believe the Republicans have stated they intend on working to repeal the healthcare bill and craft more intelligent legislation. Do you live under a rock?
I believe the Democrats official strategy is - no shit you can't make this stuff up - they're going to keep campaigning against George W. Bush.
Are you with the Republicans?
Do you support the RNC?
Inasmuch as it comes down to repealing the healthcare legislation? Yep. If they ever get back to real fiscal conservatism I might register Republican for the first time ever. If they keep pulling Democrat-lite, fuck 'em.
Ron Paul?
What the frack does Ron Paul have to do with anything? Some of his ideas I like, others make him seem a nutjob.
There doesnt seem to be a collective notion inside the Tea Party about how to proceed-will they take on or be taken on by the Repubs?
Ohhhh, you want to free associate here, got it. Considering the TEA Party is in its infancy, does it really surprise you that it's not altogether coherent? Is this fucking rocket science to you?
Personally, if the Repubs wee smart, they'd recognize that they need to get back to fiscal conservatism (i.e. pick up what the TEA partiers are puttin' down), they might actually accomplish a huge shift and make massive gains. I hold no hope that they'll wake up though.
If the Democrats were smart, they'd start working on trying to be fiscally responsible and they'd KILL the Repubs. Unfortunately for the Dems, they're genetically incapable.
Is there anyone who is guiding this group?
You have a few precious years to get it together,
and you have accomplished nothing in the last year.
Mind making a coherent point? Are you talking about TEA partiers, or Republicans? And the only thing the Dems have accomplished with absolute control of two branches of government is to piss off the electorate.
Post a Comment