The press is starting to wake up and grow some balls

She is one of the top political writers in the country. Her opinion holds sway.

Micheal Moore is one of the top documentary makers ever. I suppose you have even more respect for his opinion.

I do like what Noonan wrote about Palin though -> "Noonan expressed her view that Palin did not demonstrate "the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office" and Noonan concluded that Palin's candidacy marked a "vulgarization in American Politics" that is "no good... for conservatism... [or] the country."

I suppose you must have too.

He is still singing the now oldie but moldy tune about how he inherited everything and nothing is his fault.

Nope. You made that up. I'm going to need to see proof that he said "nothing is his fault".

That depends on where he is leading it. Right now, it appears that he is the drum major for the parade marching us over the cliff of socialism/Marxism/fascism.

All three? :rofl3:

Right now it appears that you are marching us over the cliff of alarmism, made up shit/labels instead of logic.

Also where he is leading the country doesn't affect how much time it takes to mention bad press.
 
Sending more troops would jeopardize more lives. So that would show he does care.

13,000 so far this week. Not the 40,000 McCrystal wanted but at least it is a good start.

By your standard, Obama cares 13/40 as much as the rest of us.

He has already expressed his opinion of "victory" twice; and if you were a soldier under his command would you be comfortable with the following?

SOURCE

At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, a reporter asked Obama whether sanctions would impact Iran. Noting that this wasn't "a football game," the president declared he was "not interested in victory but solving the problem."

It wasn't the first time that Obama had shied away from the word "victory." He did it in July when, during an interview with ABC News, he said about Afghanistan: "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."

Can you imagine an American president being afraid to use a word like victory? Does that mean that he is prepared to tolerate defeat?

By the way, it was not Hirohito who "came down" to sign the declaration of unconditional surrender on the deck of the Missouri. He keeps proving that he is completely devoid of knowledge of history.
 
13,000 so far this week. Not the 40,000 McCrystal wanted but at least it is a good start.

By your standard, Obama cares 13/40 as much as the rest of us.

What standard are you talking about now?

He has already expressed his opinion of "victory" twice; and if you were a soldier under his command would you be comfortable with the following?

Hell yes! That's sounds downright thoughtful and reasonable instead of empty chest thumping platitudes.

There really is no clear idea of victory in Afghanistan. Gotta respect the thoughtfulness there.

:thumbup:

By the way, it was not Hirohito who "came down" to sign the declaration of unconditional surrender on the deck of the Missouri. He keeps proving that he is completely devoid of knowledge of history.

Actually in reality he has displayed a more thorough knowledge of history than many recent presidents.
 
The One's college thesis is about to surface
and it is gonna be another kick in the balls for him.

Rush mentioned it today, next week it will hit them in the face

Rush had this to say about the Ledeen article aftetr he had read it on the air:

RUSH: In the first hour of this program, I cited a statement that Michael Ledeen found on the blog Jumping in Pools reporting on Obama's college thesis written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called "Aristocracy Reborn," and in the first ten pages Obama wrote the following: "[T]he Constitution allows for many things but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believe the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy." Now, I got a note from a researcher who has been scouring the Internet, and the note says this:

"Rush Limbaugh: Mini-warning on these quotes." Because the paper that Obama wrote, "Aristocracy Reborn," the first ten pages were all that reporter Joe Klein was permitted to see; and it says here that Klein did write about it for TIME Magazine. A researcher has been scouring the Internet and can't find any sources for the quote. "The blog that Ledeen cites doesn't have supporting info," supposedly. The source post that was from August, says it's going to be in an upcoming report from Joe Klein, but the researcher can't find anything that has come out since, and nothing in Klein's blog. There have been no matches found on the Internet for any of the info or quotes other than the source posting. So I now say that the blog from which this came has no sourcing data other than Joe Klein upcoming report and Joe Klein hasn't written his upcoming report.

So we have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate. However, I have had this happen to me recently. I have had quotes attributed to me that were made up, and when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, "It doesn't matter! We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway." Sort of like Dan Rather said, "I don't care if these documents are forged. I know that Bush did what he did at the National Guard. I don't care if the documents are forged." I don't care if the Limbaugh quotes are made up. So, I can say, "I don't care if these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it. You know why I know Obama thinks it? Because I've heard him say it." Not about the Constitution, but about the Supreme Court. Again, 2001, FM radio station interview in Chicago when he was a state senator in Illinois.

OBAMA 2001: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and -- and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

RUSH: Now, he's talking about the Warren Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth." So we've got a supposed piece from his college thesis at Columbia where he complains that the Constitution didn't talk about the distribution of wealth. So we know that it's on his mind. So even if he didn't say it, I know he thinks it. That's how it works now in the media. And I do know he thinks it because I just heard what I heard, and so did you. Let's see.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog. So it's one of these sites like ScrappleFace or The Onion or some such thing. So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today.
 
You mean a target like when the Bush administration attacked NBC?

Bush sends a letter to NBC on their mischaracterization of the Iraq war as a "civil war; their intentional omission of key portions of an interview he gave, and their falsification of GDP numbers on growth; and you equate that with the president disallowing any of his administration from going on a certain news channel, his shunning this same news channel while doing five Sunday shows, and attempting to wheedle and cajole other news organizations to treat them in the same way he is doing.

Quite a stretch there Spike.
 
Micheal Moore is one of the top documentary makers ever. I suppose you have even more respect for his opinion.

Moore is a revisionist historian, nothing more.

I do like what Noonan wrote about Palin though -> "Noonan expressed her view that Palin did not demonstrate "the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office" and Noonan concluded that Palin's candidacy marked a "vulgarization in American Politics" that is "no good... for conservatism... [or] the country."

I suppose you must have too.

Like I said, her opinion holds sway. It even swayed you.
 
What standard are you talking about now?

You set the standard when you wrote "Sending more troops would jeopardize more lives. So that would show he does care."

Your hero now sees fit to jeopardize another 13,000 lives. Viz a viz, by your standard he does not care.

Hell yes! That's sounds downright thoughtful and reasonable instead of empty chest thumping platitudes.

There really is no clear idea of victory in Afghanistan. Gotta respect the thoughtfulness there.

So he states that victory is not the goal and you are celebratory about it?

Actually in reality he has displayed a more thorough knowledge of history than many recent presidents.

But the "thorough knowledge" does not extend to the most basic facts of one of the most important events in world history. Go figure.
 
13,000 so far this week. Not the 40,000 McCrystal wanted but at least it is a good start.
It my understanding that the 13k was part of a commitment from earlier on and zero to do with what McCrystal asked for. Obama still hasn't addressed the June request from the general.
 
The funniest part of all this posturing between Fox News and the White House is how everyone pretends that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't fire every single self-styled conservative pundit and replace them with (again, self-styled) liberals if he thought for a second that it would be profitable. Familiar with the concept of bread and circuses?

Yeah...pass the whole wheat, please...;)
 
Bush sends a letter to NBC on their mischaracterization of the Iraq war as a "civil war; their intentional omission of key portions of an interview he gave, and their falsification of GDP numbers on growth;

I equate that with accusation of Obama attacking Fox.


and you equate that with the president disallowing any of his administration from going on a certain news channel, his shunning this same news channel while doing five Sunday shows, and attempting to wheedle and cajole other news organizations to treat them in the same way he is doing.

That I equate to Bush avoiding NYT.

But add to that all the extreme thing Bush did like sending talking points to one news channel and planting "military analysts" as independent commentators and well....there's nothing to equate that with in the Obama administration.

You must have been livid with Bush.
 
You set the standard when you wrote "Sending more troops would jeopardize more lives. So that would show he does care."

Your hero now sees fit to jeopardize another 13,000 lives. Viz a viz, by your standard he does not care.

No, I'm not saying no more troops should be sent I'm saying we should think about the goals and the best way to achieve them. I'm glafd he's taking these lives seriously.

So he states that victory is not the goal and you are celebratory about it?

Yep, victory is an empty word when it comes to Afghanistan. I know nobody here has even made an attempt to qualify what that means here except Gonz. Who said "bringing them out of the 2nd century" which we have no Constitutional mandate to do.

You want to take a stab at it?


But the "thorough knowledge" does not extend to the most basic facts of one of the most important events in world history. Go figure.

Actually that's a trivial fact. Hirohito did surrender. Whether he was on the deck of the Missouri is trivial. Would you like me to find some Bushisms on history?
 
Well shit. Turns out Fox lied about this whole thing. *Surprise*

WH: We're Happy To Exclude Fox, But Didn't Yesterday With Feinberg Interview
Christina Bellantoni | October 23, 2009, 6:09PM

Adding to the Fox News v. White House feud today is a dust-up over an interview with pay czar Ken Feinberg. Turns out, it was a sort of miscommunication, but the White House adds that if they had left Fox out it would be a case of "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

The version Fox has pushed all day is that the network was excluded from an interview roundtable with Feinberg yesterday, and that bureau chiefs from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN came to Fox's defense.

TPMDC dug into it, and here's what happened.

Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.

"If any member had been excluded it would have been the same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," the bureau chief said. "It's all for one and one for all."

A Treasury spokesperson added: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."

But the White House isn't backing down from its feud with Fox.

"This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

An administration source wondered if the networks were annoyed Fox disclosed logistical negotiations since they are treated as off the record, but the bureau chief did not view this in the same light as discussions about, for example, the president going to Iraq.

As for the ongoing battle, Earnest said: "The president and other high ranking officials and people like Ken Feinberg have done interviews with Fox in the past and will do them in the future."

We clipped video of Garrett discussing the issue.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php
 
Back
Top