NC Democrat assaults student reporter :: Free Realms

#130 Jun 16 2010 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

There was no official "Bush Doctrine". It was a phrase used among liberal bloggers and pundits to describe what they viewed as a defining doctrine of the Bush administration, conveniently defined in terms negative towards the actions they were criticizing.

Hehehe...

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#131 Jun 16 2010 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good

Xsarus

10,601 posts

Quote:

No. That's the point. It wasn't. There was no official "Bush Doctrine". It was a phrase used among liberal bloggers and pundits to describe what they viewed as a defining doctrine of the Bush administration, conveniently defined in terms negative towards the actions they were criticizing. It was used as a way of attacking the Bush administration.

This is familiar. hmmmm. That was the last post you made in that thread too. Smiley: lol

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 3:22pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#132 Jun 16 2010 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

I'll note that neither of you deny that what I said is true. The fact is that there was no "Bush Doctrine", either in some official way, or recognized or labeled as such within the Bush administration, nor among the Republican Party, nor among conservatives as a whole. But I love how you'll both pretend there is with a non-response response.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 2:18pm by gbaji

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#133 Jun 16 2010 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

I'll note that neither of you deny that what I said is true.

I have on multiple counts before with supporting evidence. The fact that you're unteachable doesn't mean that I'll spend a lot of time on you every time you show your ignorance.

By the way, you were wrong on both counts of the quoted statement.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#134 Jun 16 2010 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent

Xsarus

10,601 posts

Or it could be that we actually remember going over this in the past and didn't think we needed to spoon feed you. I'll just quote joph from a past thread. I thought about quoting it before, but knew you'd make some sort of absolute statement, and thought that would be funnier. You'd think you'd at least try google or something first.

Jophiel wrote:

The White House wrote:

THE PRESIDENT: Under the Bush doctrine I said we'd use all resources, all available resources to fight off terror. And that includes working with our friends and allies to cut off money, to use diplomatic pressure, to convince -- to convince those that think they can traffick in terror that they're going to face a mighty coalition. And sometimes we use military force and sometimes we won't.

In the case of the Middle East, obviously, the road map I've laid out is one that calls upon all our friends and allies to join and bind together against terror; it calls upon the Arab nations to step up and firmly reject terror. If you remember in my speech, I said they need to get on their public airways and denounce terror, they need to work on Syria and Lebanon, to prevent Hezbollah from creating chaos in the Middle East. We all have responsibilities and in this case the tool I'm using is diplomatic pressure to work with our friends and allies to convince all parties they have a responsibility to bear.

According to the White House, Cheney wrote:

Since the day our country was attacked, we have also applied the Bush Doctrine: Any person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account.

The first to see this doctrine in action were the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan by violence while turning that country into a giant training camp for terrorists. America and our coalition took down the regime in a matter of weeks because of our superior technology, and the unmatched skill of our armed forces, and, above all, because we came not as conquerors but as liberators. The Taliban are gone from the scene. The terrorist camps are closed, and the Afghan people are building a nation that is secure, independent, and free.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 4:28pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#135 Jun 16 2010 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1599438059439

Scholar

5,159 posts

gbaji wrote:

George Bush and **** Cheney are liberal conspirators!!!

#136 Jun 16 2010 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

The actual document Gibbs refers to in his questions was the 2002 National Security Strategy document which states in part:

Quote:

The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction â€“ and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemyâ€™s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."

Note that the same document also includes the aspects cited by Bush and Cheney above. At worst, Gibbs could be accused to focusing on a singular part of the document but that wouldn't change the fact that Palin still had no idea what in the fuck he was talking about and tried to blunder through with non-answers. It's not as though she ever challenged Gibbs' interpretation of the document, she just had no idea what was going on.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#137 Jun 16 2010 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good

Xsarus

10,601 posts

Gbaji has been strangely silent.

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#138 Jun 16 2010 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good

Bijou

GBATE!! Never saw it coming

9,971 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

Gbaji has been strangely silent.

A common occurance when he is blinded by reality.

____________________________

remorajunbao wrote:

One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#139 Jun 16 2010 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Wouldn't it be more "muted by reality?"

____________________________

#140 Jun 16 2010 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Friar Bijou wrote:

Sir Xsarus wrote:

Gbaji has been strangely silent.

A common occurance when he is blinded by reality.

No. I got called into a meeting. Sheesh.

The point is that there was no single "Bush Doctrine" universally referred to. You can find tons of quotes of people referring to various things as the "Bush Doctrine", but they're referring to different things. Hence, Palin's response was correct. It's relevance here is that one can say a reference to the "Bush Doctrine" is just as vague as asking someone what they think about the "Obama Agenda". Those phrases mean different things to different people.

Um... Which is the same thing I said in the last thread where we discussed this. Selective memory on your parts I suppose.

Oh. And to be fair, I did misstate this a bit in my earlier post. I should have said that there was "no single Bush Doctrine...". Didn't mean to imply that no one ever used the phrase at all, but that it was used as it often used in presidential administrations as a broad statement about a presidents position on a given issue. Again though, the relevant point (and why I brought it up), is that demanding that someone respond to a broad and vague question isn't exactly an unusual thing, nor should it result in an outbreak of violence.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 5:01pm by gbaji

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#141 Jun 16 2010 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1651450735431

Sage

10,246 posts

gbaji wrote:

Friar Bijou wrote:

Sir Xsarus wrote:

Gbaji has been strangely silent.

A common occurance when he is blinded by reality.

No. I got called into a meeting. Sheesh.

The point is that there was no single "Bush Doctrine" universally referred to. You can find tons of quotes of people referring to various things as the "Bush Doctrine", but they're referring to different things.

But that's not quite what you said, remember?

Quote:

The fact is that there was no "Bush Doctrine", either in some official way, or recognized or labeled as such within the Bush administration, nor among the Republican Party, nor among conservatives as a whole.

Add to that that when the President of the United States refers to his stance as the Bush Doctrine, that's pretty much the end of the debate.

#142 Jun 16 2010 at 6:03 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:

gbaji wrote:

The point is that there was no single "Bush Doctrine" universally referred to. You can find tons of quotes of people referring to various things as the "Bush Doctrine", but they're referring to different things.

But that's not quite what you said, remember?

Quote:

The fact is that there was no "Bush Doctrine", either in some official way, or recognized or labeled as such within the Bush administration, nor among the Republican Party, nor among conservatives as a whole.

Add to that that when the President of the United States refers to his stance as the Bush Doctrine, that's pretty much the end of the debate.

Yeah. See the edit I made while you were posting this.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#143 Jun 16 2010 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Hence, Palin's response was correct.

Hahahaha... yeah.

If you mean mumbling half-answers and hoping for some magical out is "correct".

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#144 Jun 16 2010 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good

Xsarus

10,601 posts

a meeting? you made 5-10 posts in other threads while this thread was active. man up. Pathetic. You didn't misstate anything. You were fucking wrong and aren't man enough to admit it. Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 10:47am by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#145 Jun 16 2010 at 9:07 PM Rating: Good

Xsarus

10,601 posts

Aside: Even though I broke the filter in the post, it still filters it in my post history. interesting.

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#146 Jun 17 2010 at 3:08 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Hence, Palin's response was correct.

Hahahaha... yeah.

If you mean mumbling half-answers and hoping for some magical out is "correct".

I love the Pavlovian response to Palin you're displaying. Doesn't matter what the context is, her name is mentioned and you suddenly can't see anything other than her name and a mindless need to attack! Hysterical...

For the fourth time, the point was not to re-argue whether Palin's answer was a good one, but to establish that asking about the "Obama Agenda" is no more or less vague than asking about the "Bush Doctrine", and that no matter how dumb a question it may be, it should not result in a physical assault on the person asking the question.

Oh.... Palin! Muahahahha...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#147 Jun 17 2010 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1630282721753

Sage

14,174 posts

You've totally fucking lost it recently, man.

I mean, you never had that firm a grip on reality, but you went off the deep end sometime in March and I don't think you're ever coming back.

#148 Jun 17 2010 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good

Xsarus

10,601 posts

gbaji wrote:

but to establish that asking about the "Obama Agenda" is no more or less vague than asking about the "Bush Doctrine"

except for the part where the bush doctrine isn't vague, and doesn't actually refer to "many different things" Smiley: laugh

Gbaji in 2004 wrote:

Bush's doctrine makes that a very real threat down the road for these groups. If we can make it so that they know that they wont be able to operate openly under the protection of an indifferent nation's borders, we will see a reduction in the amount of violent actions.

haha, you used to get it. Of course he'll post that bush's doctrine is very different from the bush doctrine.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 4:24pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#149 Jun 17 2010 at 3:53 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1628468336211

1,263 posts

You liberal whack jobs just can't seem to discuss anything political without referencing Palin or W can you?

Here we are talking, or trying to talk about, a Democrat senator assaulting a journalist and you can't help but attack Palin and W? Are you f*cking serious? Are you people that far gone? Are you really attempting to justify this guys actions because these kids were obnoxious?

If this Senator isn't charged by the city then every single liberal who's ever said anything about corruption or abuse of power is full of sh*t.

I'm curious...how much time have you liberals, media included, gone on and on about warrantless wiretaps? A Senator assaults a journalist and all you have to say is "he's not my senator" or "those kids deserved what they got".

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 5:57pm by knoxxsouthy

#150 Jun 17 2010 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good

Xsarus

10,601 posts

You realize that Gbaji brought up palin and bush right varus?

And no one has said that the senator was in the right, nor have they tried to justify his behavior. Most people said he was an ***. It's still not worth getting outraged over.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 5:10pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#151 Jun 17 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1628468336211

1,263 posts

Xarus,

It's worth the city prosecuting over and the Democrat leadership to come out strongly against his actions.

Tell me what has Reid, Pelosi, or Obama said about this?

They sure had time to admonish W for the same wiretapping program that Obama is continuing and expanding on.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 6:19pm by knoxxsouthy