Users who Dugg This
thepoliticalcat
1131 Followers
Standing My Ground
4858 Followers
kmom5Feb 29, 2012
FTA:
"When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Gingrich yesterday if that standard also applies to President Bush (Bush issued an apology to Iraq for a similar incident there in 2008), the former House Speaker didn’t have an answer. “I wasn’t a presidential candidate at that point,” was all he could come up with."
What a lame ass cop out.
scabnabbitFeb 29, 2012
(Current) -7 / +16 (No responses)
"What a lame ass cop out."
So you can add at least 7 to that.
slang4catMar 1, 2012
A bigger question is how and why the Afghans found out about it in the first place.
But I think he's has a point. Was he asked about it when Bush apologized?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
frumblerMar 1, 2012
But what does he have to say when asked about it now? Crickets....
slang4catMar 1, 2012
Did anyone ask him?
taddareMar 4, 2012
Yes,his answer. “I wasn’t a presidential candidate at that point.”
And the Afghans found out because the army did it in front of them.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
That's not a big question. Bush managed their economy about as well as he managed ours. Somebody was probably going though the garbage looking for food.
slang4catMar 1, 2012
Bush's economy was rock solid.
It wasn't until the Dems took control of Congress in 2008 did things go south.
Bush even tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie. To bad he was met with nothing but resistance from Congressional Democrats who cried:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis!''
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing!''
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
But yeah, keep f**kin' that chicken, rogue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I_Keeps_It_RealMar 1, 2012
I want to live in your world. Reality blows
slang4catMar 1, 2012
Overall real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between 2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%. The number of jobs created grew by 6.5% on average. The growth in average salaries was 1.2%. Growth in consumer spending was 72% faster than growth in income. Investment in residential real-estate soared, growing 26% faster than average.
Despite growth levels below previous levels, a March 2006 report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slang4catMar 1, 2012
In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
Would you like me to continue or would you like to address some of these points?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slang4catMar 1, 2012
Welcome to reality.
I_Keeps_It_RealMar 1, 2012
Please continue, and site your sources this time. Links to real raw data would be nice
slang4catMar 1, 2012
Come on, you can't be that lazy. You have a computer right? Google? Ether refute my point or STFU. You must be one hell of an OWS protester.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
The problem with these fictional characters, is the glib assumption we are all like the ignorant hillbillies of the right. Us centrists and leftest actually have our own money that Bush lost, and don't really need to find bogus links telling us we didn't.
Worst president in US history = Andrew Johnson
Second Worst = George Bush.
Don't need a link to know that.
mlw4428Mar 2, 2012
"Come on, you can't be that lazy. You have a computer right? Google? Ether refute my point or STFU. You must be one hell of an OWS protester."
First off all...
"Ether refute my point or STFU. You must be one hell of an OWS protester."
^^^^ That has to be the funniest thing I've ever read. "I'll show you no facts, but you'll need to refute my opinion!"
Second of all...
It's not about being lazy. The fact is you and I and basically everyone else on Digg isn't exactly a credible source. That's where citing your information comes in. If you get your information from Joe Incest Hilljack who is pissed off because a black man is in office...then I'm pretty much calling anything he has to say bulls**t.
Be an intelligent person and cite your sources or do you not believe in the idea that people should have facts to back up what people say?
If so, then: Obama has increased the economy 10000000000% and the Republicans raped little boys and impregnated a bunch of little girls while sucking Santorum out of their own assh**es.
No facts required, just Google for it. Right? That's acceptable, right? You're saying that it is. Good job, Dumbass4Digg.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
"Bush's economy was rock solid."
Agreed. He tanked it in 2001 and it never budged. Well, not till his last two years, where it fell down the well. But after he lost all our money and tanked the market -- rock steady for his whole term.
slang4catMar 1, 2012
HE lost all your money?
YOU lost all your money. Mostly because you don't know what you are doing, and are fooling around with things you don't understand. I thought we covered this for you. Put your money in CD's. You'll never lose another dime.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
Yes. HE lost it. All he had to do was not rock the f**kiing boat. But, oh no, f**king ignorant hicks from Texas always know better than us 'book learned' types. He pissed away our surplus, ignored bin Laden even though Clinton put him front and center for him, and started two wars pointlessly expensive wars that Obama is having to finish for him.
Yes, bitch, HE lost my money. Do you know what he would have to have done to let me keep my money? NOTHING! All he had to do was leave things as SMARTER people had left it. But, oh no, dumbass from two dogs f**king Texas with the Yale degree daddy bought him and advanced skills at staying stateside during a war gave him the VAST WISDOM to know more than the real genius that proceeded him.
mlw4428Mar 2, 2012
Actually I'll agree with slang4cat for the first time ever...
Bush didn't lose your money. Greedy banks, that he bailed out over $1 Trillion.
http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LVDMGO1A74E901-5CG1C7JPCU5J1O688G3J3C73JE
"According to Kaufman, Geithner visited his Capitol Hill office to argue that the issue of limiting bank size was too complex for Congress. The Treasury secretary preferred that international bank supervisors, meeting in Basel, Switzerland, make rules increasing the amount of money banks need to hold in reserve, Kaufman said. Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Geithner, declined to comment.
Geithner knew which banks received Fed assistance and how much they got. Lawmakers didn't. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, and Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who co-sponsored the financial reform law that bears his name, Dodd-Frank, among others, said they were kept in the dark."
The Bush administration kept the Senate out of the loop.
So Bush didn't personally kill your investments, but he took your tax money and gave it to the bank because THEY were greedy f**ks betting on CDOs based upon a faulty mathematical algorithm.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all
"The damage was foreseeable and, in fact, foreseen. In 1998, before Li had even invented his copula function, Paul Wilmott wrote that "the correlations between financial quantities are notoriously unstable." Wilmott, a quantitative-finance consultant and lecturer, argued that no theory should be built on such unpredictable parameters. And he wasn't alone. During the boom years, everybody could reel off reasons why the Gaussian copula function wasn't perfect. Li's approach made no allowance for unpredictability: It assumed that correlation was a constant rather than something mercurial. Investment banks would regularly phone Stanford's Duffie and ask him to come in and talk to them about exactly what Li's copula was. Every time, he would warn them that it was not suitable for use in risk management or valuation.
In hindsight, ignoring those warnings looks foolhardy. But at the time, it was easy. Banks dismissed them, partly because the managers empowered to apply the brakes didn't understand the arguments between various arms of the quant universe. Besides, they were making too much money to stop."
Banks were warned and they were too goddamn GREEDY. And BUSHY bailed them out.
I don't blame you for feeling like Bush took your money, rouge. But dumbasses like slang4cat think it was Clinton's fault the economy tanked like it did. That pisses me off.
roguegeniusMar 2, 2012
No. It was Bush.
You are right about the Banks, and the are at fault for the current mess, but the market plunge of the early 2000's... that happened because we had a nice stable environment till skippy the wonder chimp came in and started shaking all the trees. People got scared, got conservative. Pulled their money out of riskier ventures till 'things calmed down' but once you rock the market, it's hard to 'un-rock' it. The reason I know this happened is I did it too.
It was Bush. 100% Bush, and nobody else. Not that time at least. (obviously I'm talking about the administration, not the man.)
roguegeniusMar 2, 2012
"The Bush administration kept the Senate out of the loop."
First of all, I think it's over simplified. Second of all, who is guilty? They guy to walks though the door and takes your stuff or the guy who picks all your locks and puts an 'open season' sign in front of your house. This is a Bush mess.
I_Keeps_It_RealMar 1, 2012
You make a slew of unfounded claims and I am the lazy one? Prove your point its not my job to fact check you
slang4catMar 1, 2012
It came straight out of Wikipedia, Jack. Which is fully sourced.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
@Kitty,
Wow, I've never seen anyone "red line" my BS meter, but you just did. Way to bulldoze the crap.
First, Dubya's Presidential terms aren't referred to as the "lost decade" because the economy roared from his "leadership". Quite the OPPOSITE.
Second, while we recognize your political fantasies, "Princess". Economies don't collapse the moment Democrat's are elected, they collapse from YEARS/DECADES of economic/financial incompetence. In this case, we're talking about 30 YEARS of Conservative economic/fiscal stupidity.
Third, Fannie and Freddie's disastrous lending practices were PROTECTED by Republicans and CURTAILED by DEMOCRAT'S. Hell, Newt Gingrich, a REPUBLICAN House Speaker, was paid $1.6 MILLION by Freddie Mac to PREVENT regulatory constraints and his Republican peers in Congress OBLIGED.
Don't believe what I'm telling you? READ the Levin-Coburn Report (the bipartisan committee which EXAMINED the Housing crisis and what CAUSED it). Here's the SOURCE MATERIAL:
http://www.levin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/supporting/2011/PSI_WallStreetCrisis_041311.pdf
Now, READ it, then crawl into fetal position and cry yourself to sleep with that Dubya "binkie" you drool all over.
P.S. Don’t worry too much about someone else's chicken frickin’, your fellow Conservatives are in the process of planning their own brand of Va-jay-jay probing...just...for...you. Enjoy!
I_Keeps_It_RealMar 1, 2012
nothing left for me jess? thanks for proving my point. you got time to digg me down but not to back up your claim
slang4catMar 1, 2012
You are so lazy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Economic_growth
All that standing around occupying whatever space you happen to be in, and doing nothing has really turned you into a shiftless laze-monger.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
@slang4cat,
Did you bother to read what you supplied? It GUTS your economic argument in support of Dubya.
While this doesn't surprise those of us who have examined the economic issues involved, you appear to be a "fish out of water" on the topic.
Dubya's economic record was an unmitigated disaster, as are MOST economic/fiscal public policies implemented by Conservatives.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
I love that knowledge = lazy in what passes for kitty's mind. I tend not to source because I KNOW what i'm saying. I'm not gobbling up talking points like a mindless slave/whore for hire. I know what I'm saying and say it. Source? My brain, that's the source, and it's better than any ten sources you can come up with.
I_Keeps_It_RealMar 1, 2012
Thanks for confirming my suspicions
slang4catMar 1, 2012
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Economic_growth
Enjoy!
I_Keeps_It_RealMar 1, 2012
you know jess, we could be friends if you kept the personal attacks at bay. I understand attacks may be key to your political process but they are starting to hurt my feelings :[
and thank you for that lovely link to the Wikipedia article. I encourage you read it slowly, thoroughly, and entirely. Maybe dig into some of the sources at the bottom of the page. I wont spell it out for you but you may come to realize that its all fairly negative about the economic policies under W.
try to remember that while growth is good, miniscule growth, or growth that does not exceed the costs is in and of it self not a good thing.
eraptorMar 2, 2012
Nailed it...
mjm6783Feb 29, 2012
So if Obama does something it's "surrendering" but if Bush did the same thing... no comment. Uhhh.. I mean... I wasn't pandering at the time.
dptbear3893Mar 1, 2012
I think the only problem people have is that when there was a Bible burning a few years a go he didn't care at all, and 2 soldiers were killed over the Quran burning and he cares more about the fact some terrorists were upset than the fact 2 men died, more so than he was about American Christians about the Bible burning. Yea Quran burning is bad but the circumstances around it are what make us upset about the way Obama is handling the situationComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Mar 1, 2012
He's doing the sensible thing to try and stop more people from dying. My point was regarding the fact that according to Republicans it's okay if they do something, but if Obama does it, it's the end of the world. I can't take them them seriously when their positions are so hypocritical and hysterical.
Ouzel7Mar 1, 2012
Ok... let's try this again:
Bush apologized because a troop member SHOT the Koran...that was hostile and a desecration.
This situation was different. The Korans were being used as communications by prisoners who were desecrating them by doing so. So you have desecrated Korans that are also being used to pass communications.
Islamic Law says it's ok to burn a desecrated Koran.
The desecrated Korans were burned.
Someone found out (apparently because they weren't incinerated all the way) and started an uproar.
The president issued an apology even though nothing was done wrong. People got killed and the whole area is still pissed off because it seems like we did something wrong.
We did not...we disposed of desecrated Korans in a fashion acceptable to Muslims.
That is what should have been conveyed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
taddareMar 4, 2012
Perhaps we should have asked an imam to oversee the destruction of the desecrated Korans. Sometimes the way you do things changes the meaning.
Like burning a flag. Either a sign of disrespect or the proper means of disposal of a damaged flag per US Flag Code. TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 8(k)
dptbear3893Mar 1, 2012
but Bush didn't ignore burnings of the Bible... that's the difference, and I don't see any hypocrisy in being mad Obama did
kewlethanMar 1, 2012
it's not his job to get mad about religion or worry about the Bible.. his job is to preserve your right to religious freedom. i'm tired of religious nuts trying to bring religion into politics.. keep your religious beliefs to yourself.
dptbear3893Mar 2, 2012
I'm not trying to bring religion into politics. you are right that it has no place in government, but the reason Obama apologized for Quran burning was because it is disrespectful to that religion and that is totally ok. What isn't ok is that he didn't apologize for the disrespectful burnings of Bibles, showing he shows more respect to Islam than Christianity
Ouzel7Mar 1, 2012
dpt - I'm only talking about THIS particular situation. Everyone seems to want to say, "This was done then and he did this and he said that, but this one time...he said this and they did that..."
This particular situation was handled poorly by the president.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kewlethanMar 1, 2012
we are fighting an ideological war. why is this so hard to understand. this is all about their religious beliefs, so yeah, an apology was in order. what should we have done? send in more troops to deal with the backlash?
Ouzel7Mar 1, 2012
Read above you.
kewlethanMar 1, 2012
is there a verifiable transcript of his apology to determine if this was communicated? is there verifiable evidence that this is indeed what happened to the Koran? It doesn't even matter. Whether it's justified or even in accordance with Islamic law, you do not do that simply because they get upset and kill our troops. or at the very least do it in a manner that 'they' won't find out about it. it's pretty straight forward at this point.
Ouzel7Mar 1, 2012
It doesn't matter. We should have issued no apology. The circumstances should have been explained and that should have been the end to it.
Now...I'm not going to beat this to death.
There are some mutterings about wanting to subject the soldiers that burned these Korans to a courtroom. IMO... that would be a travesty.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CrescentSkies_2Mar 1, 2012
Well to be fair, when you're being shot at by a specific group of people 24/7 your brain does tend to generalize "these are the only people shooting at me, they're the enemy".
Instead of blaming Bush and...um...okay never mind (Gingrich will never stop being an idiot)...well instead of blaming the President, at that time we should have been trying to get soldiers stationed in the middle east to understand that the holders of the Quran aren't the enemy. Instead it's the people twisting the Quran so they can use other's firmly held beliefs against America.
anomaly100Feb 29, 2012
But do not, I repeat do not blame Bush or the Bett brigade will be after you.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
Bush?! I curse his name on a daily basis. Thanks to him, everything my investments earned from 1990-2008 EVAPORATED, just vanished into thin air. Thank JEEBUS we have someone with a brain in charge now, and at last my investments are recouping. That son of a thousand and father of none, may quadrupeds relieve themselves daily on his grave! Every morning I open the paper hoping to read that he was discovered partially eaten by his own dogs in his house, drunk out of his mind, as usual, and choked to death on a pretzel. That f**king scumbag destroyed this country.
As for the Bett and her brigade, they're lousy layabouts who hang out on Digg and piss and moan as they watch their supremacy of numbers flushing down the terlet. Someday they'll figure out just how much that guy screwed them. Given how slow their minds work, it'll be on their deathbed.
anomaly100Feb 29, 2012
"Someday they'll figure out just how much that guy screwed them."
Unfortunately they are defined by this: Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.
Insanity.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
Grade A nutbags. And blaming everyone else for it all the time. Personal responsibility my fat ass.
parasangerFeb 29, 2012
My thoughts exactly. Worst post WW2 president.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
According to American academic historians, he is the worst president EVER. I'm simply dumbfounded by those who continue to defend him. You don't need to be more than simply literate to examine his factual record, and his record speaks volumes, none of them flattering. Regrettably, even talking about him makes me so angry that I have to take precautions to remain logical and focused.
parasangerFeb 29, 2012
The only reason I didn't broaden the range is I'm just not that up on the pros and cons of Henry Harrison and Franklin Pierce.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
Neither am I, but I trust that academicians, in accordance with their professional responsibility, are, and know whereof they speak, my friend.
stevanoskiFeb 29, 2012
Historians will do for Bush what they did for Reagan, put him down as one of the greats.
justmyop1nionMar 1, 2012
"The Siena College poll, which surveyed 238 presidential scholars at U.S. colleges and universities, asked scholars to rate the nation’s 43 chief executives on 20 attributes ranging from legislative accomplishments to integrity and imagination.
In the overall ranking, Obama rated two places below Clinton, who was 13th best, and three better than Reagan, who is ranked as the 18th best.
Franklin D. Roosevelt again earned the top spot, as he has every time since the poll was first conducted in 1982. He and the Mount Rushmore presidents — Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — have consistently been the top five presidents in the poll’s findings."
That must really get your blood boiling, huh?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/historians-obama-better-than-reagan/
stevanoskiMar 1, 2012
Way too soon to be judging Bush much less Bam. Time is on my side on this argument. But don't let it get your blood aboil.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
Steve-o,
I told ya so...
For a person who constantly criticizes Obama while he's STILL serving in office, you've got some nerve defending Dubya's disgrace. The nation's historians have ALREADY rendered their opinion on Dubya's lost decade and their views are NOT likely to change any more than his Presidential record will. That record is cast in "stone".
stevanoskiMar 1, 2012
Not the way it works raptorman. If the historians had been right about Reagan when he stepped down then we would not have had Obama quoting him and trying to act like him. History takes time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
justmyop1nionMar 1, 2012
" If the historians had been right about Reagan when he stepped down then we would not have had Obama quoting him and trying to act like him. History takes time."
Even when Reagan left office though, his ranking wasn't that bad. Siena held Reagan at 22 in 1990 and now has him ranked at 18. In 2010, Siena held Bush at 39th place, and other ranking organizations aren't much kinder.
A large part of it probably has to do with comparing the quality of the country when the president stepped into office and the quality of the country when he stepped out. And Reagan managed to lower unemployment and inflation and bring about economic prosperity by the time he left office. Bush took office on budget surpluses and left with high unemployment, two unpaid wars, and a soaring national debt. Regardless of who is to blame, a president is viewed in their ability to lead the country into greatness and overcome the obstacles of opposition to strengthen the country, and Bush failed to do so.
concusionMar 1, 2012
"Rewriting history takes time."
*fixed
eastversewestMar 1, 2012
Reagan, one of the greats? The man who deregulated the world and started trickle down economics was great? The president who started the deficit that my non existent children are already responsible for, one of the greats? Thew president who was treasonous by going around Congress and funding the Contras with weapons sold to Iran, was great? Revisionist historians maybe. I can promise you that most economist do not put him down as one of the greats. His own Budget Director has admitted the error of their ways.
mjm6783Mar 1, 2012
Ironically the neo-conservatives are even more extreme. They want even greater deregulation, more tax exemptions, higher military budgets, increased political power for corporate interests, and legislation enforcing their religious views on the whole country.
I never thought I would say this, but can we bring Regan's agenda back to the Republican party?
miklkitFeb 29, 2012
I stand in awe of a true professional sir! :0)
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
Why, thank you. I'm much obliged.
slang4catMar 1, 2012
"Thanks to him, everything my investments earned from 1990-2008 EVAPORATED, just vanished into thin air."
Then your portfolio is non-diversified piece of s**t. Was Bush your financial adviser? Because, if not, I can hardly see how that's his fault.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
Mine didn't evaporate, but they did drop by a third. Starting to rebound a little now though. I wonder why?
slang4catMar 1, 2012
Fire your financial adviser.
slang4catMar 1, 2012
Actually, you should just stay out of the markets all together. Because you clearly don't know how to invest.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
Oh boy. More advice from an anonymous internet person. Between your ninja money skills, and aadyss's ninja combat AND money skills... bette much be one rich bitch.
slang4catMar 1, 2012
You're the one complaining of a 33% drop in portfolio value. You shouldn't need an anonymous internet person to tell you that you don't know what you are doing, it should be crystal f**king clear that you are in over your head. A person of your mental caliber and financial prowess should stick with CD's. Much safer.
thepoliticalcatMar 1, 2012
Obviously, S/HE made SO much off his/her investments that they have to work now for pennies posting drivel on Digg. People who HAVE lots of money don't waste their time on the Internetz. They buy their wives two Cadillacs and drive from one of their vacation homes to another.
roguegeniusMar 2, 2012
I appreciate your thoughts, slag4cat, but I'll handle my own investments. The last thing I need is advice from someone whose only demonstrated skill is dummy accounts are reading off talking points.
My biggest mistake is not being a personal friend of the Shrub family. I'm sure they made out like bandits. Not you, of course. You lost just like I did (assuming you ever had anything invested to begin with). They just use you like the whore you are and discard you, knowing you always be available at any price when they need you to sell their bulls**t again.
kewlethanMar 1, 2012
It didn't evaporate.. it went somewhere. the largest transfer of wealth in history..
slang4catMar 1, 2012
Soros made $1 Billion in a single day. Liberals still love him.
roguegeniusMar 2, 2012
Not that day.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 29, 2012
So now Gingrich and Romney have both played the "it's okay when you're not a presidential candidate" card.
Romney blasting Santorum for wooing democrats even though Romney admitted to having voted democrat in order to vote against someone (T. Kennedy, Clinton, etc.), but now when Santorum encourages voters to do THE EXACT SAME THING, suddenly it's not okay?
And now Gingrich blasting Obama for something he let Bush do without complaint, and the only thing that's changed is that Gingrich is running for office now? And he admitted this?
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
I don't like this headline.
"Gingrich Silent on Bush apology..."
Seriously? Newt has FINALLY shut the hell up, and we are complaining? Do we wake up colicky babies on long crowded flights too?
concusionMar 1, 2012
its actually saying Gingrich didn't say s**t about Bush apologizing for Koran burnings, but you bet he had s**t to say about Obama apologizing.
salbatrossMar 1, 2012
"Baby, you complained quite vocally about the recent turbulence. Yet you slept through the turbulence early in this flight. Care to explain in as shrieking a way as possible?"
thomasbogueFeb 29, 2012
Anti Obama people made his apology a big deal.
nosherMar 1, 2012
Blitzer should know better. Once again, IOKIYAR is still the golden rule of conservative politics.
kcast985Feb 29, 2012
I honestly don't understand what the big deal is about apologizing in US foreign policy we destroyed their holy book and now they have began rioting and killing US troops we should be doing anything we can to stop the outbreak of violence and if that includes apologizing then so be it.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
It's a Frank-Luntz-focus-group-tested talking point to paint President Obama as weak. Never mind that MANY other Presidents have apologized when apologies were appropriate. Never mind that nobody has ever died as a result of people apologizing when they did something wrong. Never mind that the Republicans themselves don't believe this "weak" meme, because if he is so damn weak, why won't they put their BIG boys, like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, in the race? Because they KNOW he is NOT weak, he did what they SHOULD have done a decade ago, got rid of bin Laden, broke the back of al-Qaeda, ended the bulls**t "war" in Iraq, and brought the troops home. And he did it all while saving the economy and taking the Dow back up and bringing back jobs.
Now the Republicans are s**tting themselves in public because they do not have a SINGLE good idea on how to save the economy or make our lives better. So every day they try to find something NEW! and SHINY! to distract us with. Well, I'm not distracted. The CBO analysis of the Republican budget plans have shown that every single ONE of them will cost us money. President Obama is the only one who HAS ideas, and he has my vote and I am doing everything that I can to make sure he wins another term.
And since the Republican candidates are doing the same exact thing, I have high hopes of seeing him take the Oath next February.
eastversewestMar 1, 2012
But gas prices, and Catholics and birth control, and ...........
misterbadideaFeb 29, 2012
Do I have to turn in my liberal card if I think that that isn't a completely unreasonable explanation for why he didn't say anything? Gingrich was mostly out of public life at that point, he was running his bulls**t lobbying businesses, and he had no real reason to believe that anyone would care what he thought about every little political development in '08. Of course, I don't remember what Gingrich was up to all that well, so if he was issuing statements about what he thought about equally important developments that year, please tell me to shut my ass up.
youareretardedMar 1, 2012
You mean he wasn't a fox news pundit?
concusionMar 1, 2012
he was busy leaving his terminally ill wife.
misterbadideaMar 1, 2012
Correct you are. Newt Gingrich was under contract as a Fox News commentator from 1999 to 2011, so I will walk my statements back some. However, I am still uncomfortable with the fact that he is being blasted simply for not weighing in on one issue back in 2008.
The way he does answer the question in full does seem like a dodge, but I'd be more comfortable with unpacking his full response than just the part where he says he wasn't a presidential candidate.
salbatrossMar 1, 2012
I'm not too terribly worried about the fact that he didn't have anything to say at the time, but now that he is in the public spotlight and criticizing presidents for making apologies, he's implicitly saying that what Bush did was okay by dodging the question.
mitchellkFeb 29, 2012
Isn't there a difference between burning worn out books, not to intentionally anger, but to dispose of them (2012) and a sniper shooting a hole in a Koran to show his contempt(2008)? These situations aren't comparable.
Ouzel7Feb 29, 2012
Exactly! Man ... I hope you aren't buried, because you are absolutely correct. These Korans were not worn out, they were desecrated by the prisoners who were sending extremist communications in them.
THAT is why Obama bungled this one. People should have been made aware immediately that these Korans were already desecrated so we had to burn them according to Muslim custom and replace them with new ones.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mredofcourseFeb 29, 2012
It was reported as to why we were disposing of them. The problem is that there's a difference between burning them the way we did, and burning them according to Muslim custom.
After the fact, there is the option to explain and apologize or just explain. Obama chose to explain and apologize.
Guess what? The apology didn't cost the taxpayers anything, didn't raise gas prices, and didn't have a single negative consequence. However, it *may* have had a chance of cooling off the incident a bit, if nothing else than to keep anyone from saying, "look at what they did, they call it an accident, but don't apologize". Yes, it's about attitude.
Ouzel7Feb 29, 2012
You are not correct, sir.
It is not specified as to how they are to be burned in Muslim custom.
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/time_for_a_little_honesty_sometimes_muslims_burn_qurans
The apology made it seem like we did something wrong. We did not. It may well have cost lives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mredofcourseFeb 29, 2012
You're missing the point. There are over a billion Muslims in the world and probably over a billion different interpretations and customs.
When we burned them; what was their reaction? Obviously we did not dispose of them the way all Muslims considered to be appropriate and respectful.
I suspect, those that were ok with the way we disposed of them are more rational and the given apology itself is highly unlikely to suddenly turn them into radicals.
On the other hand, the lack of the apology is only fuel to be used against us in addition to the incident itself.
The *only* negative in issuing the apology is for Obama himself as it gives *our* irrational radical right-wingers fuel to use against him. Maybe we just don't do that, and put the interests of the country, its citizens, and the troops defending us first?
quisquisMar 1, 2012
You seem to not understand that in many parts of the world, an apology (especially an unwarranted one) can be considered a sign of weakness.
When someone "caves" (in this case, admitting wrongdoing) as a result of someone else's irrational violence, it has a tendency to encourage that violence as a future strategy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timedalkatFeb 29, 2012
You guys need to shine a light on something that matters rather than everything and anything spin-able if you want to gain back the credibility Bush lost ya. Bungled it.....zero ramifications here, except for the electioneering bs opportunists who now have more s**t to spew.
Ouzel7Feb 29, 2012
Except people shot in the head because it should have been handled MUCH differently by the president.
One goofy-mustachioed preacher in Florida burns a Koran and they go nuts in the Middle East. It's not like we don't know what happens.
The moment he had the news, he should have said the Korans were desecrated by the prisoners using them to write inflammatory messages and so, according to Muslim law, they were burned and replaced with non-desecrated Korans.
Zero apology was necessary here and fomented an atmosphere that we did something wrong here. This isn't a little thing...and Obama did bungle it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timedalkatFeb 29, 2012
Come on! Get a grip!
Ouzel7Feb 29, 2012
Excellent, well-composed response. You addressed my comments in such a fashion as to render them meaningless. I'm sure no one could possibly compare with your polished skill.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timedalkatFeb 29, 2012
I was afraid you might reply with more citation-less facts.
Your first sentence is not only grammatically incorrect, it's hyperbolic rhetoric and it makes me scream out loud.
"Except people shot in the head because it should have been handled MUCH differently by the president."
I'm sure you believe what you wrote there, but I'm in no mood to debate it right now.
Ouzel7Mar 1, 2012
The ramifications are the people shot in the head.
Your false pedantry is tiresome.
timedalkatMar 1, 2012
Agreed, I'm normally not a grammar Nazi, but this one isn't false. When you couple it with that speculative dramatic bullcrap I have no choice but to point out all of the reasons your point has little merit.
You're still missing a citation on all the head shots this caused.
thepoliticalcatMar 1, 2012
He has no grip to get, dood. He's too busy choking that chicken.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
OK, riddle me this. You are in a foreign, hostile country with very little infrastructure. Not many telephones, newspapers, hardly any books, libraries, or even TV or radio outside major cities. Hell, hardly any electricity outside major cities. You are there to (as far as these people can tell) kill other people. Some of the people you are killing are not very nice, but they also happen to be the kids, neighbours, classmates, cousins, etc., of these other people. And some of the people you're killing are innocent children, old ladies, babies, pregnant ladies, sick people. So AFA the population of the country is concerned, y'all are a bunch of crazy assh**es who came to their country because of something some guy they don't even KNOW did, and you're killing people.
How exactly do you tell these people that what you were doing was not intended to be disrespectful? Do you publish a notice in the newspaper? Remember, most of these people can barely read, and MOST of them DO NOT HAVE ACCESS to newspapers. Do you take out an ad on the TV or radio? A lot of them don't have TVs or radios, or don't have the power to run them. Do you put up signs in the libraries? Oops, no libraries. Street signs? No streets, really, outside the big towns.
Take your time to think this out. I don't usually hang out here because there's very little serious thinking and lots of ragey, shouty yelling. But I will come back and look for your answer.
Ouzel7Feb 29, 2012
You'd be surprised how much access they have to media. If they didn't... how did they find about about the burned Korans in the first place. As far as what you do ... as president of the USA...see my comment above.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
As I pointed out earlier, there is not a great deal of thinking done in this place, which is why I prefer not to hang out here. You are actually *asking* me how did they find out about the burned Korans in the first place? Did I not plead with you to spend a little time *thinking* before responding to me? I did. Perhaps you didn't hear me.
Let me explain again. You're in somebody ELSE's f**king country shooting their asses dead nine ways to Sunday. Do you really for one minute believe that other people are like, what, Sim City virtual critters that they just don't DO anything about it? What would YOU f**king do if someone arrived in YOUR neighbourhood and started shooting YOUR friends and neighbours dead?
Has it penetrated yet? No? Here's what you would do: you would start a RESISTANCE. Because so far in several THOUSAND years of human history, no human tribe has been found that LIKES being attacked and bullied and killed.
Now, what is the job of the Resistance? To get the enemy out. How do you get the enemy out? You unite your people against him. How do you unite your people against him? You take every single thing he does and you paint it as something bad. You know, just like the Republicans are always telling you that DemonRats LIE and LiEberals want more coloured people on the Dem plantation, that sort of stuff? It's called propaganda?
And because the Resistance is composed of, you know, the NATIVE people, they have access to people that YOU don't have. Do you get that? Afghani resistance fighters know people who know people who know people and the information spreads THAT way. That is WHY the information is so easily blown out of proportion or distorted. It's like the old game of "Chinese whispers." You tell somebody the sky is blue and by the time it comes back to you, it's "Cry for me, Boo."
Please tell me you're under 18 years of age. Because if you're not, you need to sue your school for failing to teach you basic critical THINKING skills.
Ouzel7Feb 29, 2012
Yo... before you bitch about MY education ... you want to tell me that the people who executed two folks IN THE MINISTRIES did NOT have the story? They had the story...they also had the apology that shouldn't have been issued. They were IN THE ministries...but maybe you didn't think that through. Go back to where they fawn over you.
Supergenius.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
I see. You ARE under 18. I'm not "bitching about [YOUR] education." One can't complain about things that don't exist. You're using the rhetorical device known as a strawman. Please spend a little time reading about rhetoric and logic, and how to construct an argument. YOU chose to respond to a comment I made addressed to some other commenter; YOU chose to take umbrage at my comment. You even had the nerve to direct me to some previous comment, as if I had come here only in search of your wisdom and brilliance. You then posted something that showed very clearly that you had neither read nor thought about my comment. When you got a richly-deserved smackdown, you then flounce about in a poutrage and mount an ad hominem attack.
I'd love to say something insulting to you, but I'm laughing so hard I can barely type. Life must be awfully tough for you, kiddo. Just wait till you get out of school and have to actually work for a living.
Here's some free advice. It's the f**king Internet. It's not worth getting your shorts in a bunch over anything you read here. If someone tells you something you don't know, go look it up. Learning stuff is never bad. Other than that, it's a crapshoot. If you ain't having fun, it just ain't worth it.
Ouzel7Mar 1, 2012
I'm having a blast! You liberals are so much fun. You make a comment, you ad hominem... you get a short, effective rebuttal and you proceed to try to claim superiority...
Gosh you guys make me laugh almost every day.
Thanks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepMar 1, 2012
As much as I enjoy your posts, it won't work on this thick skinned troll you are verbally jousting with. If you really want to spend more time with ouzel, take at look at his comment history before continuing to try to reason or rationalize with him.
thepoliticalcatMar 1, 2012
I usually give everyone three chances to f**k up before I boot them, inajeep. He's had his three. I don't waste time talking to people who are incapable of listening or understanding, you know that. ;-)
Ouzel7Mar 1, 2012
This is great. I'll look forward to not having to read any drivel directed at me in the future.
quisquisMar 1, 2012
What are you getting at?
That no apology should have been sent because there was no way to get it to them?
That the apology that was sent was only sent for political purposes to the leaders of the middle east because they're the only ones equipped to receive it?
That the apology was sent only to placate western nations that felt like we needed to apologize out of a sense of general western guilt?
etc...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scienceguy1977Mar 1, 2012
Religion was bulls**t then....Religion is bulls**t now, All religion.
Screw any person that kills people over a book.
Where is the apology for the assasination of our troops?
f**k Bush for apologizing, and f**k Obama for doing the same thing.
And a big f**k you to the media for continuing to bring this s**t up!!
tomasiiMar 1, 2012
But Bush!! But Bush!!!.. Will liberals ever tire of this excuse?
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
Yes. When something come along that FINALLY won't be his fault.
tomasiiMar 2, 2012
Hahaha, funny liberal, thanks for the laugh. One would think you would be able to see how Obama has screwed up royally but hyper partisans never see the flaws in their own party.
GentlemanGhost542Mar 1, 2012
Double standard much? Time to come clean Gingrich
knm123Mar 1, 2012
Ps, if it was so holy, why were they writing in them and passing messages around... uh, hello, is it only me??? Ofcourse, that's just what I heard...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Mar 1, 2012
It's true and no, it's not only you.
skinturtleFeb 29, 2012
I just burnt a Quran.
thepoliticalcatFeb 29, 2012
And? What? You want Mommy to give you a cookie? Does she give you a cookie when you make doodie too?
Geez. Troglodytes are bad enough, but why moronic troglodytes?
skinturtleMar 2, 2012
did i offend you?....good if I did.
Oops..I just fried another KRAN.
Man...what kind of paper are they using in these things...they burn awesomely.
scienceguy1977Mar 1, 2012
Not sure why you are getting down voted. f**k the Quran as well as the bible.
I might just go and burn one of each this weekend!!! Any one wanna come over and cook hot dogs over them?
Hell we can make it a party, Women can even show there faces, hang out and be treated as equal human beings!!
akronMar 1, 2012
Who the hell keeps voting for these jackasses?
pc25Feb 29, 2012
I have your apology right here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZYEctbGSkkw
knm123Mar 1, 2012
I don't have a problem with the apology... I have a problem not demanding an apology and control when our boys get shot... Like I said before on this subject.. we should get up, walk out and let them cry about their messed up country to Russia..... maybe they will help them....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.