Why does Palin speak with a Canadian accent?

Dixie said:
Crash, please post for me, the actual text version of The Bush Doctrine, I would like to read through the actual document itself, please.
Click to expand...

That's sad, Dix. The Bush Doctrine is not some obscure term. It is a term which any casual observer of politics is familiar with, and was debated frequently by politicians & pundits alike. It is not a "liberal media" creation, and is something that has been expounded on by people like O'Reilly, Limbaugh & the rest.

Your attempts to cover for her not knowing it are pathetic. First, you seem intent on proving that she was just trying to clarify what "aspect" of it Gibson wanted to discuss. Now, you're making it out to be some liberal fabrication that you'd only read about on Daily Kos.

You'd have to live in a bubble not to have heard that term of know what it means.
 
Onceler said:
That's sad, Dix. The Bush Doctrine is not some obscure term. It is a term which any casual observer of politics is familiar with, and was debated frequently by politicians & pundits alike. It is not a "liberal media" creation, and is something that has been expounded on by people like O'Reilly, Limbaugh & the rest.

Your attempts to cover for her not knowing it are pathetic. First, you seem intent on proving that she was just trying to clarify what "aspect" of it Gibson wanted to discuss. Now, you're making it out to be some liberal fabrication that you'd only read about on Daily Kos.

You'd have to live in a bubble not to have heard that term of know what it means.
Click to expand...

I want one of you idiots to go find me a link to the actual text version of The Bush Doctrine, so I can read it and determine if Palin knew what Gibson was talking about. Can you do that, or not? If you can't, I would say that Palin was correct in asking Gibson "what aspect" when he asked the loosely defined question about it.

My point is simple, there is no such thing as a text version of the document, because it is not a document. It is the description of a broad policy, with numerous aspects to it, as the Wiki link posted above will indicate. In that respect, Palin was certainly justified in asking "which aspect" of the idiot Gibson, who apparently didn't understand that it had different aspects. Apparently, you idiots don't understand that either, but that is the case.
 
Dixie, you hardly need to prove anymore that you can convince yourself of anything, but keep at it.

It doesn't matter. Palin is basically a laughingstock at this point (the lines from the last SNL skit that got the most laughs were actually lines she had spoken). Even Republicans are wringing their hands, trying to figure out a way to replace her on the ticket. And I guarantee you that they are sweating bullets about Thursday.

I feel kind of bad for her. She shouldn't have been put in this position; Mr. "country first" should have used his brain, instead of going for a quick gimmick...
 
LOL... Oncie, I like Tina Fey on SNL, she will make a fortune doing Palin parody, and that is cool, but it's comedy, television, not reality. Palin is a laughingstock to liberals, because they can't do anything but laugh at this point, nothing they throw at her seems to shtick!

We will see after the debate with Biden, how things go. As I said before, I think her main problem right now, is the McCain camp filling her head full of nonsense and not allowing her to be herself. I'm not a big McCain fan, he does some really stupid shit from a political standpoint sometimes, and I don't get where he is coming from, but I can't do anything about it at this point, he is the nominee we are stuck with, for better or worse, and I guess we'll just have to hope for the best. I can tell you this much, if the Democrats don't win this election, you need to seriously consider another line of work... I mean, seriously!
 
Dixie said:
LOL... Oncie, I like Tina Fey on SNL, she will make a fortune doing Palin parody, and that is cool, but it's comedy, television, not reality. Palin is a laughingstock to liberals, because they can't do anything but laugh at this point, nothing they throw at her seems to shtick!

We will see after the debate with Biden, how things go. As I said before, I think her main problem right now, is the McCain camp filling her head full of nonsense and not allowing her to be herself. I'm not a big McCain fan, he does some really stupid shit from a political standpoint sometimes, and I don't get where he is coming from, but I can't do anything about it at this point, he is the nominee we are stuck with, for better or worse, and I guess we'll just have to hope for the best. I can tell you this much, if the Democrats don't win this election, you need to seriously consider another line of work... I mean, seriously!
Click to expand...



The thing so funny about the SNL skit, it was an exact copy of the real interview, very few words were changed. It required almost no writing! It was not a real parody, but a mocking of reality.

To me thats why it was so funny, it was an almost exact copy of reality.
 
Dixie said:
LOL... Oncie, I like Tina Fey on SNL, she will make a fortune doing Palin parody, and that is cool, but it's comedy, television, not reality. Palin is a laughingstock to liberals, because they can't do anything but laugh at this point, nothing they throw at her seems to shtick!

We will see after the debate with Biden, how things go. As I said before, I think her main problem right now, is the McCain camp filling her head full of nonsense and not allowing her to be herself. I'm not a big McCain fan, he does some really stupid shit from a political standpoint sometimes, and I don't get where he is coming from, but I can't do anything about it at this point, he is the nominee we are stuck with, for better or worse, and I guess we'll just have to hope for the best. I can tell you this much, if the Democrats don't win this election, you need to seriously consider another line of work... I mean, seriously!
Click to expand...


What stupid shit has McCain done? You defend everything so far, I dont belive you are capable of stating one specific thing you belive he did that was stupid.
 
The thing so funny about the SNL skit, it was an exact copy of the real interview, very few words were changed.
Click to expand...

You're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. I watched it, and nothing was verbatim. Now, in your warped little pinhead mind, where words can be redefined to mean the complete opposite of what they're supposed to mean, and context never exists... yeah, maybe you thought that. But you are retarded! I'm just amazed you were able to turn on the television and tune to SNL... or did mommy do that for you?

You know, I can still recall when Ronald Reagan first made it on to the national stage in politics, and pinheads mocked him, ridiculed his experience, and laughed at the idea he could be elected president. He nearly dismantled the Democrat party. All the while, you kept making fun of him, an kept making him out to be a doting idiot, even after he trounced two opponents in landslide fashion. As I have said before.... Keep it up! PLEASE!
 
What stupid shit has McCain done? You defend everything so far, I dont belive you are capable of stating one specific thing you belive he did that was stupid.
Click to expand...

You Jarhead idiot, I seldom ever 'defend' McCain for anything. I've posted numerous threads bitching about McCain over the years, and anyone who has bothered to read my posts, knows this is true. I predicted his political demise when he formed The Gang, and raised t-total hell over CFR! I bashed him relentlessly over his proposed Amnesty bill.... Up until he nominated Palin, I seriously wondered if he was even a Republican! My assessment was, it seems McCain does a focus group to determine what Conservatives want, and then does the exact opposite! It is almost as if it physically pains him to be on the side of Conservatives. The fact he nominated Palin, literally blew my mind, I am still amazed.

Here are the most recent "stupid things" for ya... He suspended his campaign to go back to Washington to work on the bailout fiasco. He tried to postpone the debates... stupid! He sends Palin out to interview with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, but right-wing talk radio is literally having to beg him to let her come on their shows.

So now that I've met your idiotic pinhead challenge, in spades, I think an apology is in order. I'm sure that's coming sometime in this lifetime, huh? You stupid disingenuous fucktard!
 
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.

As I pointed out YESTERDAY Dumsy, the Monroe Doctrine was not a piece of paper entitled "The Monroe Doctrine." It was part of Monroe's 6th or 7th state of the union address. It was not named the Monroe Doctrine for years afterward. So using your logic Dipsy, there is no "Monroe Doctrine".
 
uscitizen said:
According to dixie the finiancial meltdown does not exist since it is not properly documented.
Click to expand...

Have you gone off your meds again? I never said ANYTHING "didn't exist!" IDIOT! Regarding the Bush Doctrine, (which is what you're talking about) I said, correctly, that it isn't a document, it isn't something that is in black and white, that an individual would automatically know and understand, as Gibson seemed to think. Palin asked him "WHAT ASPECT?" and considering there are several, it was a legitimate question! Because you are too profoundly retarded to understand there is a difference between supporting the Bush Doctrine aspect of preemptive strikes and the Bush Doctrine aspect of establishing democracies, is not Sarah Palin's fault. It doesn't mean the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist or she doesn't know what it is, it simply means, she needed a clarification on what the question was, which Gibson didn't seem to know how to articulate... but because Charlie Gibson is a clueless dullard idiot, you want to blame that on her!
 
Dixie said:
Have you gone off your meds again? I never said ANYTHING "didn't exist!" IDIOT! Regarding the Bush Doctrine, (which is what you're talking about) I said, correctly, that it isn't a document, it isn't something that is in black and white, that an individual would automatically know and understand, as Gibson seemed to think. Palin asked him "WHAT ASPECT?" and considering there are several, it was a legitimate question! Because you are too profoundly retarded to understand there is a difference between supporting the Bush Doctrine aspect of preemptive strikes and the Bush Doctrine aspect of establishing democracies, is not Sarah Palin's fault. It doesn't mean the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist or she doesn't know what it is, it simply means, she needed a clarification on what the question was, which Gibson didn't seem to know how to articulate... but because Charlie Gibson is a clueless dullard idiot, you want to blame that on her!
Click to expand...

Gibson specified a date.
Do your verbosity dance if you must, but you are wrong yet again.
 
Dixie said:
Have you gone off your meds again? I never said ANYTHING "didn't exist!" IDIOT! Regarding the Bush Doctrine, (which is what you're talking about) I said, correctly, that it isn't a document, it isn't something that is in black and white, that an individual would automatically know and understand, as Gibson seemed to think. Palin asked him "WHAT ASPECT?" and considering there are several, it was a legitimate question! Because you are too profoundly retarded to understand there is a difference between supporting the Bush Doctrine aspect of preemptive strikes and the Bush Doctrine aspect of establishing democracies, is not Sarah Palin's fault. It doesn't mean the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist or she doesn't know what it is, it simply means, she needed a clarification on what the question was, which Gibson didn't seem to know how to articulate... but because Charlie Gibson is a clueless dullard idiot, you want to blame that on her!
Click to expand...
:stup2: I just pointed out above when the Bush administration released what EVERYONE but you and Saracuda know to be the "Bush Doctrine" so it is a document you tard. Just like Monroe's speech is a document which lays out the Monroe Doctrine.
 
Socrtease said:
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.

As I pointed out YESTERDAY Dumsy, the Monroe Doctrine was not a piece of paper entitled "The Monroe Doctrine." It was part of Monroe's 6th or 7th state of the union address. It was not named the Monroe Doctrine for years afterward. So using your logic Dipsy, there is no "Monroe Doctrine".
Click to expand...

Does the Monroe Doctrine have various aspects to it, like the Bush Doctrine does? Or in your simpleton mind, are they equal in comparison because they both have the word "doctrine" in them? You are comparing an apple to an orange here, the two are not even remotely similar.

As I said in the last post, but I'll repeat it here because you idiots apparently need to read it a few times to comprehend... There are SEVERAL ASPECTS of the Bush Doctrine (i.e; Preemptive Strikes, Establishing Democracies) and depending on which ASPECT, Palin might just have a different opinion. When she was generically asked how she felt about "the Bush Doctrine" it wasn't specified what was meant. Gibson didn't specify what ASPECT of it, and even after she asked him this, he still didn't specify a particular ASPECT of it, so she gave a generic answer to a generic question, and you morons start claiming she didn't have a clue what it was. Charlie Gibson didn't have a clue, and apparently, your retarded asses don't have a clue either, but Sarah Palin clearly knows what the fuck the Bush Doctrine is, and that it has VARIOUS ASPECTS to it!

God, why do you people have to be so stupid?
 
Dixie said:
She didn't know what aspect or 'version' of the Bush Doctrine, because he didn't say! MORON! What part of that are you not fucking understanding? If someone asks, "Do you like pie?" and you respond, "what kind of pie?" Does it mean you don't know what pie is? What you idiots did, was jump on this before you did any research, and now you look idiotic. You apparently thought "The Bush Doctrine" was some specifically defined policy that was set in stone and should be understood universally by anyone in politics. That is simply not the case! There are as many as four various versions and interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, and none of them are forged into a formal documentation defined as The Bush Doctrine. How the fuck is Sarah Palin supposed to assume what the idiot meant, unless he clarified what the fuck he was talking about? She is a goddamn governor, not a psychic!
Click to expand...
You pie analogy fails. Because Gibson did not say what is your position or opinion of "the doctrine"? He said BUSH DOCTRINE. Which as I have shown you really does exist as a document. Gibson asked her what she thought of cherry pie, what you are claiming is that she didn't know WHICH PIECE of the pie Charlie was talking about so she couldn't answer the question which is BULLSHIT. But a nice way of lowering expectations of Palin.
 
The Bush doctrine was published on published on September 20, 2002. There was one addition to it in 2006. Other than that it was NOT a hard question IF you know what it is. She could have given an answer on the 2002 version, the 2006 addition or the whole damn thing. Instead she pretended to know more than she did. Hell your own answers show that you don't even know the entire Bush doctine. It is really easy to look up on the internets, why don't you try doing that and then come back and talk to us when you KNOW what the fuck it is you are talking about. Until then you are nothing but a partisan Palin Hack.
 
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.
Click to expand...

Nothing was EVER delineated as "The Bush Doctrine" fucktard! It was a term coined by Charles Krauthammer, a political analyst on TV, to describe a SERIES of Bush policies. IT MEANS VARIOUS THINGS, IT DOESN'T HAVE ONE SET PRIMARY DEFINED OR DELINEATED MEANING! You can keep on insisting that it does, all you like, it isn't EVER going to make it true!
 
Dixie said:
NO YOU FUCKING HAVEN'T! STOP LYING!!
Click to expand...
Yes I have. And several articles have been written on the Bush Doctrine OUTSIDE of Krauthammer (who by the by used the term in February or 2001, a full 7 months before 9-11 changed everything." Out of the National Security Strategy (hereinafter "The Document") you will find there are FOUR points which are the core of the BUSH DOCTRINE. They are Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy. Now if Palin KNEW ANY of these she could have said to Charlie, well I am in complete agreement with president bush that we have the right to engage in regime change when Dictatorships in the world support those who would attack us." But she didn't. She could have said "well Chaarrrlie, I agree with the president that we should act in concert with our allies when we can, but we are not to be held hostage by a devout acceptance of Multilaterlism. We can, if the situation calls for it, act Unilaterally in protecting our security and interests". But she didn't.

She could have said, "Well Chaarrrrlie, When it comes to regime change, I, like president bush agree, that Democracy is not America's gift to the world but God's gift to Humanity." BUT SHE DIDN'T.

Instead she looked on in blank, unknowing suprise, and said nothing. But you are right, it is because there is really NO Bush doctrine.
 
Socrtease said:
Yes I have. And several articles have been written on the Bush Doctrine OUTSIDE of Krauthammer (who by the by used the term in February or 2001, a full 7 months before 9-11 changed everything." Out of the National Security Strategy (hereinafter "The Document") you will find there are FOUR points which are the core of the BUSH DOCTRINE. They are Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy. Now if Palin KNEW ANY of these she could have said to Charlie, well I am in complete agreement with president bush that we have the right to engage in regime change when Dictatorships in the world support those who would attack us." But she didn't. She could have said "well Chaarrrlie, I agree with the president that we should act in concert with our allies when we can, but we are not to be held hostage by a devout acceptance of Multilaterlism. We can, if the situation calls for it, act Unilaterally in protecting our security and interests". But she didn't.

She could have said, "Well Chaarrrrlie, When it comes to regime change, I, like president bush agree, that Democracy is not America's gift to the world but God's gift to Humanity." BUT SHE DIDN'T.

Instead she looked on in blank, unknowing suprise, and said nothing. But you are right, it is because there is really NO Bush doctrine.
Click to expand...

:)

This thread is great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top