Author Topic: Brutal Left Wing Owning  (Read 1368 times)

The Coach

  • Guest
Brutal Left Wing Owning
« on: September 15, 2008, 10:10:21 AM »
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
 
 
RUSH: I want to go to one Sarah Palin sound bite.  This is perhaps one of the highlights of Sarah Palin's interview.  It's number 23.  It is one of the highlights of the whole interview last night.  She's great in this.  I just want to set up this.  She would not allow Charlie Gibson to put different words in her mouth when she answers his question about Israel.  Now, just listen to this.  This is Gibson's question.  "What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?"

PALIN:  I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

PALIN:  I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

PALIN:  We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

RUSH:  She would not let him put words in her mouth.  She would not let him trip her up. He tried 25 different ways to try to trip her up on that.  She's essentially saying, "Screw you, Charlie, did you hear my answer?  This is my answer, and I'm sticking to it.  You can ask it however many ways you want, but this is my answer."  This is just fabulous, people worried about how she did.  Play it again, listen to this, the resolve that she has in her answer here despite Charlie Gibson's attempt to get her to say, "Damn right we'll nuke you," because they want the headline, "Palin: Nuke Iran," that's what they want.  They tried it with her answer on Russia and NATO, misrepresenting that.  Here it is one more time, again, Charlie Gibson's question, "What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?" 

PALIN:  I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

PALIN:  I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

PALIN:  We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

RUSH:  I just love that.  I just absolutely love it. 
 
 
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Debbie, Mission Viejo, California, thank you for waiting, and welcome.

CALLER:  I love you, Rush.

RUSH:  Thank you.

CALLER:  I just wanted to say, hey, if the Dems want to go back in history, last night reminded me of Torquemada interrogating Joan of Arc.  I thought Charlie Gibson was the biggest bag of hubris wind ever, and I thought every time Sarah said, "Charlie," she was poking him in the chest, and I loved it.

RUSH:  You know how that's being interpreted by the Drive-Bys today is that she was way out of league, way out of touch, and she was trying to establish familiarity with a news god.

CALLER:  Well, she wasn't blinking, and all Charlie Gibson could do was ask her these stupid questions about her faith and war and try to turn it around and look down his nose and take off his glasses and eat the stem.

RUSH:  You realize who Charlie Gibson's audience was last night, don't you?

CALLER:  Well, I was one of them.

RUSH:  No.

CALLER:  I know who he's playing to.

RUSH:  No, no, no, you weren't the audience, I wasn't the audience, none of us listening to the program were the audience.  The audience for that interview last night was Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, Dan Rather, all of his colleagues in the Drive-By Media.  Charlie Gibson got the first get.  Charlie Gibson had to prove that he could be tough with the girl, that he wasn't going to get caught up in her celebrity, and he was gonna bear down, and he was gonna expose her, and he was gonna make news.  If he went too soft his colleagues would say that he wimped out.  He knew that if he went too hard, people like you and I would dump all over him.  He made the calculation that his reputation within his own news business was what was important, so that's why he conducted the interview in the way that he did, kept probing after she had answered, kept asking the same question over and over, kept trying to trip her up on all the usual liberal cliches about God.  I mean, they're the ones out there saying things like Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor.  And they're, "Oh, I'm not comparing Jesus to Obama."  Well, you're certainly comparing Pontius Pilate to Palin.  They're the ones out there talking all this religion stuff and blaspheming it, by the way, and misrepresenting it.  Pontius Pilate basically let the people decide, get out of the way, he didn't want any part of this.  So he turned it over to the mob.

CALLER:  Yep.

RUSH:  You know, these people, they don't even know what they're talking about when they get into these kind of areas, and it's woefully obvious.  But he was not doing this interview for you. Sure, he wanted a large audience to watch it, but believe me, when it was over, and he's doing another one today, they're doing a whole big thing on 20/20, or Prime Time Live, whatever the show is.

CALLER:  I'm going to be watching.  I just couldn't believe that hubris comment about him, because he's full of hubris.

RUSH:  Yeah.  Well, it takes one to know one.  It takes one to know one.  Debbie, thanks very much.
 
 
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Tom in Valentines, Virginia.  Tom, I'm glad you waited.  Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER:  Hey, Rush!  How are you?

RUSH:  Very good, sir.  Thank you.

CALLER:  It's a big honor.  I'm a longtime listener, first-time caller.

RUSH:  Great to have you here.

CALLER:  I was calling you about Sarah Palin, Bush Doctrine issue last night, Charles Gibson.

RUSH:  Yes.

CALLER:  There's a great blog post over on, I think it's Media Blog on National Review, which really shows that actually on that issue, Charlie Gibson was wrong and Sarah Palin was right.

RUSH:  I think that's probably true for most of the interview.  I'll tell you what, I haven't played much of the Palin interview, and let me take the occasion of your call to get there.

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  In fact, here's where I want to start.  Let's go sound bite 17, and we'll get to this Bush Doctrine thing.  The Bush Doctrine thing was the one area where people on our side cringed.  "Oh, no, she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is?"  Probably 12 people in the Bush administration know what it is.  CIA's forgotten about it, State Department's forgotten about it, Pentagon's forgotten about it.  But when she found out what he was talking about, she gave the right answer.  Anyway, let's go to number 17.  This is the NATO question.  Charlie Gibson says to Sarah Palin, "Do you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?"

PALIN:  Ukraine, definitely, yes.  Yes.  And Georgia.  Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.

GIBSON:  Under the NATO treaty wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN:  Perhaps so.  I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally is, if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

RUSH:  Now, we're working on an Obama answer to a similar question to this that he got some time ago. He didn't know how NATO works.  We're working on finding that answer.  He does not know what she just said.  Now, this was reported by the Drive-Bys as Palin would go to war with Russia.  She was just detailing what the NATO agreement calls for.  By the way, NATO, it's a shambles.  The European members of NATO are worthless right now, except for the Brits.  But she said, "Perhaps so, that's the agreement, when you're a NATO ally, another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon to help."  So they love talking this up last night on CNN.  Let's go to Wolf Blitzer, and he's got first up, Jeffrey Toobin and then Lou Dobbs coming up.  He says to Toobin, "On the Georgia thing --" by the way, Toobin is their legal guy, talks about what goes on in courts and so forth.  "On the Georgia thing and what Palin basically said was that if Georgia were to be a member of NATO the US, of course, would be obliged to come to the defense of Georgia or Ukraine or any other NATO ally under those circumstances, so she had that little nuance in there."

TOOBIN:  Well, yes, but we went through 50 years of a Cold War without going to war with Russia over things a lot more important frankly than Georgia, so I mean I just thought it was a somewhat odd answer, but we'll parse them very carefully.

RUSH:  Okay, he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's an odd answer because he's also thinking, okay, Cold War and Sarah Palin wants to take us to Russia.  Lou Dobbs has to now bury these guys and explain to them what was really going on.  Blitzer says, "First of all, what do you think about this latest sort of twist and turn in the presidential contest?"

DOBBS:  If you're sitting there listening to Obama, who's run the slickest, smartest, shrewdest campaign right up until Russia invaded Georgia, the man cannot find his tempo again. His campaign is like they're still on vacation. You just heard the man talking there with Letterman. He's boring, just as Palin comes in to give excitement to the Republicans. He talks about exciting the base -- 62 percent of men in this country have a favorable view of Governor Palin. And I heard our colleague Jeff Toobin say, "Well, he's got some questions or he's got to think about that answer of hers on whether or not, as a member of NATO, the United States would have to defend Georgia had Russia invaded it." Let me help you out, Jeff Toobin. No nuance required. We would be required to do so, as would all of the members of NATO.

RUSH:  Exactly right.  So there's Lou Dobbs bringing the kids in the sandbox at CNN back to reality.  So Blitzer says, "So I hear you saying that Obama seems to have lost his momentum, his mojo, if you will, but McCain's gained it, is that what you're thinking, Lou?"
 
 
DOBBS:  This woman has turned feminism on its head.  You're watching women in this country trying to figure what in the heck, on the left, what in the heck this woman is doing to them.  Women on the right are sitting there saying, you know, wow she's talking sensibly because she's first, pragmatic, who is trying to be painted as an ideologue of course by the Democrats, but she's coming across very pragmatic, she's strong, and, man, you gotta love the fact that this woman knows how to shoot.

RUSH:  So kids at CNN are having lots of trouble here understanding this.  They think they're the smartest people in the room and Lou Dobbs is handing them their lunch.  I want to go to sound bite 22.  We're going to skip 21, Ed.  Folks, I'm sorry to give you these instructions publicly here, but we're doing it on the fly here today.  This is Charlie Gibson talking to Sarah Palin.  "Have you ever met a foreign head of state?"

PALIN:  I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.  But, Charlie, again, we gotta remember what the desire is in this nation at this time.  It is for no more politics as usual, and somebody's big, fat resume, maybe, that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where yeah, they've had opportunity to meet heads of state.

RUSH:  But they've been wrong.  Whoopee-doo.  Decades and decades, yeah, they've had opportunity to meet heads of state, but it doesn't mean that they're right about anything.  I want to replay this.  This is one of my favorite exchanges from the whole interview.  This is Charlie Gibson saying, "What if Israel decided that it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?" 

PALIN:  I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves, and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

PALIN:  I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

PALIN:  We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

RUSH:  So they were saying, "She just repeats, she's robotic."  No, she was sticking to her answer and not letting him ask it 17, 25 times and put words in her mouth.  When we come back we'll play the question and answer on the Bush Doctrine.  But before we go to the break I have a question.  The National Hurricane Center -- I'm serious.  You think I'm going to be funny here.  I'm dead serious.  National Hurricane Center, Galveston, Texas, a warning has been issued.  If you don't evacuate in time and get out of the way of the approaching Hurricane Ike, you face "certain death."  I've never heard the government issue an order like that about a hurricane.  My serious question is, given the serious life-threatening nature of the storm surge of Hurricane Ike, where is Obama lowering the level of the seas?  Said he could do it.  Said it was going to happen.  Do we have to wait for him to be president for that to happen or can he just go right now and wave the seas back?  Stand athwart the seas and say, "Stop."  Has anybody seen Obama at any of these disaster sites, by the way?
 
 
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is the exchange between Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin last night.  He says, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

PALIN:  In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON:  The Bush -- well -- what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN:  His worldview.

GIBSON:  No, the Bush Doctrine enunciated September, 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN:  I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation.  There have been blunders along the way, though.  There have been mistakes made.  And with new leadership -- and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy as well -- is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON:  The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right tie preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.  Do you agree with that?

PALIN:  Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

RUSH:  Now, when she finally was told what it was, she got it dead right. She did get it more accurately than Charlie Gibson got it.  Charlie Gibson's flaw here when he says, "The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense and we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us."  Well, we don't.  We could think somebody's going to attack us any time we want to think it.  She applied a more strict standard to this. We have legitimate evidence that tell us a strike is imminent, the threat is imminent, what do we do? Look, as I said earlier, folks, this is the one question and answer that made people cringe who watched it.  But people don't look at these things like they watch quiz shows.  You don't get just one chance to get it right.  She came across as likable.  There were no major gaffes or any of this sort of thing. 

She did fine.  She did extremely well.  I think the Drive-Bys trying to parse this will again make a mistake.  Here's the thing.  This is what we forget.  Do you remember back in the middle of the July, Barack Obama was out there, and CNN played the clip of him saying this about his plan for Iraq.  He said, "I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close.  We're going to get out."  There's only one problem with that: the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have operational command of US Military Forces! That authority resides in the commanders of the Unified Combatant Command, CENTCOM is the expand with approximately for Iraq and 26 other countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Petraeus makes these decisions.  He would have to call Petraeus.  You don't call the Joint Chiefs of Staff!

Now, that is a major gaffe, along with 57 states.  This guy's asking to be commander-in-chief.  This guy says he's qualified. He's going to get the Joint Chiefs in there and tell them what to do.  Now, this is a major gaffe, and like all Obama gaffes, they're ignored, and he's never asked about them.  Oh, maybe he is sometimes.  They sort of do it with a chuckle. "Hey-ey-ey, you know what he said about the Joint Chiefs? Do you really...?" It's like when he said, "my Muslim faith" with Stephanopoulos this past Sunday.

"My Muslim faith." 

Stephanopoulos says, "Your Christian faith!" 

"Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah."

(doing Biden impression) "Hey, Chuck! Hey, stand up there, Chuck! Hey.  Oh...my...God.  Okay."

(doing Obama impression) "My Muslim faith.

"Your Christian faith, Barry!"

"Oh, yeah."

Imagine if Stephanopoulos had not corrected him, imagine if that had made it all through Sunday without Obama correcting it. Where would we be today? Would that not be a firework?
 
 
END TRANSCRIPT
 

 
 
 
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
 

Stark

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22988
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2008, 10:12:46 AM »
dude post that on the politics board, I'm here to see huge half naked men in tiny posing trunks.

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2008, 10:14:37 AM »
ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
September 13, 2008 - 07:26 ET 

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
 

Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.


We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:


We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.


Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.


That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.


Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”


Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television  by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.


The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2008, 10:15:42 AM »
dude post that on the politics board, I'm here to see huge half naked men in tiny posing trunks.

Bullshit...........the other Palin thread has been up for 3 days or so on here. More liberal Bias?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2008, 10:16:33 AM »
5,028 words.

lvtolft

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 768
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2008, 10:18:15 AM »
dude post that on the politics board, I'm here to see huge half naked men in tiny posing trunks.
That was hilarious! ;D

Stark

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22988
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2008, 10:20:06 AM »

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31072
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2008, 10:22:10 AM »
Is there a Cliff Notes version?  Or is it just "Repubs are desperate, Palin Pwned" all over again?

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2008, 10:26:04 AM »
Anything that involves Rush Limbaugh is incapable of an 'Owning.'  ;)

Stark

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22988
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2008, 10:26:17 AM »
Is there a Cliff Notes version?  Or is it just "Repubs are desperate, Palin Pwned" all over again?

It's good shit read it it should take long enough to recharge your nuts, than come back for some more "muscle shots" ;)

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2008, 10:54:40 AM »
5,028 words.


EXACTLY........people on here won't read because they're afraid to face the truth, they would rather listen and believe the propaganda and post edited versions of what they want to here from left wingers on youtube.

grab an umbrella

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2008, 11:01:16 AM »
Easy there coach, we already know obama is going to be president of our wonerful and beloved 57 states

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2008, 11:04:48 AM »
From one of your own - Kirsten Powers (who is BTW hot ;D)


Last updated: 3:44 pm
September 12, 2008
Posted: 3:47 am
September 12, 2008

LAST night, Sarah Palin had her first big-time media interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC World News Tonight.

At times, Palin seemed to know less than she should. On the other hand, Gibson sometimes seemed to "know" things that just aren't so.

Her responses to Gibson's cross-examining seemed canned and rehearsed, a little like the answers you might give in a tough college interview. But that may be a result of the ham-fisted editing - which seemed to cut her off mid-thought on many answers. ABC should release the entire, unedited interview, so that Americans can judge her more fairly.

The biggest concern is that she appeared to not know what the Bush Doctrine is. There are, in fact, different definitions of it - but all have had an impact on this nation. One hopes Palin is more up to speed than she seemed.

Of course, she needs to be questioned on many issues - but this interview left us with little new information about her.

Americans already know she lacks foreign-policy experience (as, by the way, did Democrats' 2004 VP candidate, John Edwards). All we could learn from Gibson's grilling on that topic was how well she's memorized McCain's positions. Why ask her whether Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO? Her position will match McCain's, just as Joe Biden's stands will mirror Barack Obama's.

Plus, her answers last night are already being misrepresented. She said - quite correctly - that, if Georgia and Ukraine are admitted to NATO, the United States may be obliged to defend them. This has been morphed into an assertion that we might invade Russia. And ABC News bears much of the blame: It actually sent out a pre-broadcast alert to that effect.

So now we can play this stupid game, pretending she wants to invade Russia instead of debating real issues.

ABC's errors didn't end there. The interview seemed to show a lack of good faith, with the blatant misrepresentation of comments she's made about the Iraq war.

Gibson - probably relying on a sloppy Associated Press report - told Palin she has said that, "Our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God."

In a part of the interview that was edited out (but is available on ABC's Web site), Palin says, "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote."

Last updated: 3:44 pm
September 12, 2008
Posted: 3:47 am
September 12, 2008

CONTINUED

Gibson snaps: "Exact words."

Sorry, Charlie - let's go to the tape.

In the video of her remarks, Palin says "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God." She is clearly praying for wisdom for our national leaders - praying that they are following God's will.

This is Christianity 101, not some fundamentalist plot to wage a holy war. Presumably, Obama, as a Christian, utters similar prayers for our country as well.

There's more: Gibson also accused her of saying of Iraq, "There is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Here's what she really said: "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Despite Gibson's insistance that she'd said things that she clearly hadn't, Palin was polite and seemed unrattled.

We need to get beyond the stereotypes. Palin has been cast as a right-wing nut job in the media, yet her actual record suggests something more complex. She is a Republican who made herself the enemy of oil companies in Alaska. She raised funding for pregnant teens and learning-disabled children. She has expressed concern that we don't have a clear strategy in Iraq.

But she also was mayor of Wasilla at a time when women were charged for rape kits - we need an explanation why. And what of her opposition to abortion even in the case of rape or incest? Is that a personal position, or does she seek to impose it on all Americans? And, even if no books were banned in the Wasilla library, why did she inquire as to how the librarian would react if they were?

There are real questions that Americans need to hear Palin answer. But they're ill-served by the game the media has played so far. Rather than real insights into this woman, we get exchanges that will lead to arguments about whether she's a religious fanatic - arguments based on a comment she never made.

This is completely destructive to the public debate. As Barack Obama says: Enough.


kirstenpowers@aol.com


dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2008, 12:05:40 PM »
EXACTLY........people on here won't read because they're afraid to face the truth, they would rather listen and believe the propaganda and post edited versions of what they want to here from left wingers on youtube.
LOLz. I don't pay attention to Rush Limbaugh for the same reason I don't watch Jerry Springer: it's dumb. And that type of nonsense, in turn, only attracts dumb people. It's that simple.  :-\

JOHN MATRIX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13281
  • the Media is the Problem
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2008, 12:13:44 PM »
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
 
 
RUSH:


i stopped reading when i got to this part.

RC Money

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 972
  • I don't knock on doors...I knock doors down.
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2008, 12:44:08 PM »
i stopped reading when i got to this part.
LOL!

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2008, 02:15:14 PM »
LOLz. I don't pay attention to Rush Limbaugh for the same reason I don't watch Jerry Springer: it's dumb. And that type of nonsense, in turn, only attracts dumb people. It's that simple.  :-\

ok, then read reply #12.

TPSRPBBW-fan1

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Liberal is not a bad word
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2008, 02:30:28 PM »
throwing a bucket of water overboard didn't stop the titanic from sinking just like lucifer palin repeating herself didn't suddenly make her any less wrong

TPSRPBBW-fan1

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Liberal is not a bad word
Re: Brutal Left Wing Owning
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2008, 02:39:05 PM »
and also, if you regretted clinton 6 months later, you must be kidding.  The man gave us a budget surplus, unlike your boy bush who's main goal is to obviously put us in as much debt as possible.  If you were too much of a pussy to handle a tax raise that made america financially stable than maybe you belong in alaska where creeps like Palin are elected governor. 

so there.