Gwen Ifill: 'Last Person to Actually Get Elected President to Win a Straw Poll Was George W. Bush'
After Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's win in Saturday's Iowa Straw Poll, the Obama-loving media have been working overtime to make darned certain the public doesn't think this has any significance.
Doing her part was PBS's Gwen Ifill who said on Sunday's "Face the Nation," "The last person to actually get elected president to win a Straw Poll was George W. Bush" - as if that was soooo long ago (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GWEN IFILL, PBS: Because no matter what you think about the Straw Poll and whether it was predictive, and no matter what you think about the caucuses and whether they’re predictive, it should be pointed out that the last person to actually get elected president to win a straw poll was George W. Bush. So, it’s not necessarily predicting the next president.
Well, let's do some math, shall we?
Bush won the Iowa Straw Poll twelve years ago on August 14, 1999. Since he didn't have any Republican challengers to his reelection, there wasn't a Poll in 2003.
That means there's only be two since then including Saturday's, and who knows whether this outcome will be predictive of anything.
As such, Ifill's point was silly because there's only been one Poll with an associated presidential election since Bush first won the White House in November 2000.
Clearly, the point she likely was trying to make was that the only person to win this Poll and become president was Bush.
Readers might think I'm splitting hairs here, but given the consummate accuracy media members demand of conservatives - especially women like Bachmann! - we should be able to demand the same from them.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
So, Gwen Awfill pops up on Slay the Nation to diss Bachmann
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 5:38pm.
...by bringing up something that is utterly meaningless in the big picture.
Okay, I'll play her game.
Not only did the last Iowa straw poll winner win the White House, he won a second term, too.
See, things are looking pretty good for Michelle Bachmann, as just perhaps she can accomplish the same feat herself.
That prospect has got to have Gwen Awfill and her fellow-traveling government-worshipers cringing.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:27pm.
I was thinking "In-fill", but "Aw-fill" works too... :)
Chris,
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:05pm.
My guess is that there are more comments on this thread than actually saw this sorry exchange on Slay the Nation.
LOL - Unless Noel put 'em over the top ratings-wise.
I just hope somebody emailed it to him. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
And few remember this quote from G.W. Bush in 2000
Submitted by lrgon on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:50am.
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."---George W. Bush
Foreign Affairs: Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist.
Gee, and then 9-11 happened
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:39pm.
And he changed his policy. Just like most Americans.
We Are The 53%
Hey Dave lets add another element
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:41am.
McCain didn't win the 2007 straw poll, and he didn't get elected prez, and now we are stuck with the golfer in chief!
We Are The 53%
Denny,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:43pm.
Exactly.
No wonder they're scared.
Imagine my distress. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
as if that was soooo long ago
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 5:55pm.
Seems like a lifetime with Obamanation at the helm. No doubt Infill hasnt seen near enough suffering
Straw polls are only
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:03pm.
Straw polls are only indications of who has the most base at the the event. However, it does say a bit about Bachman and helps her open a few pocketbooks.
Agreed
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:46pm.
I think Fox News gave way too much coverage of it, but when you've got a 24/7 news channel, you've got to fill it with something.
Here's Ifill's spin were she a Bachmann fan: "How important is this? Fifty percent of the Presidents elected in this century won the Iowa straw poll."
whiney
Submitted by grammajane on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:17pm.
Just another whiney lib who can't believe her "man" is at 39% approval. That was reported tonight on cbs news.Libs have nothing to offer but bashing and hate seeing that the past years have been a disaster for the demo. party and America because of the social agenda they keep trying to push. Ifil, stock up on some Kleenex as you will need it come, Nov.6th 2012
wayback machine
Submitted by bluecollarbytes on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:45pm.
Here's another 'curiosity'...a tidbit of political note- Our economy hasn't been flush since waaaay back when George W Bush was president.
You guys scare the crap out of me
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:14pm.
I, for one, would like to actually win this next election. Michelle Bachmann is incapable of winning a national presidential election. Any of you who cannot see that are blind. I don't dislike her at all, but she can't win. I don't see why anyone who cares about getting Obama out of the White House wastes time with her.
I have many issues with Romney, but at this point in time, he is our best shot at getting Obama out of town an anyone who truly believes that Obama is destroying this country would prefer Romney over a losing candidate like Bachmann. SHE IS A SIDESHOW!
Any issues I have with Romney are FAR outweighed by my distaste for another Obama 4 year term. Anyone who cares about this country should feel the same and quit wasting energy on this Bachmann nonsense. Support Perry, Romney...someone who might actually win the damn thing. I want a Romney/Rubio Perry/Rubio ticket. THAT would WIN.
Wow!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:21pm.
Talk about jumping the gun. The Convention is still a long way away. Why don't you save your energy....and your venom.
a.a.c.77---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:31pm.
"We" scare the crap out of Air Force One, but his rant against Bachmann was so calm, civilized, and unprejudiced that I believe he may have overcome any possible second thoughts I might have had about ol' what's his name, Mitt RomneyCare.
On the other hand, though---
MD
Hmmm interesting...
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:32pm.
why is Bachmann such a bad choice? Because she's a woman, comes from the House, the lamestream media says so?
I think if you're so damned scared do what others do when they are scared. Close your eyes and tuck your head under the covers.
I for one deal with reality and do not want RINO's as they are just cigarettes to Obama's heroin, nothing more than a slow kill.
romney bachmann
Submitted by milootoole on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:57pm.
I, like you, think it will be tough for Bachmann to win, What a shame, I far more agree with her and her efforts than I do with Romney.
I think it will be hard for her to win because liberal (and conservative ) women , will attack her as they did Palin. I never could figure out why. I thought it was because she was pretty, held Christian values and was, to most of us, a new face. Thus, she was resented by a lot of women.
Romney's values do not measure up to a true conservative. A study of his background will show that, in spite of being an outstanding businessman, he holds some of the share the wealth of Obama, (See Romneycare in MA.) He does have a nice John Edwards hairdo though.
The other reason that , I feel, weakens Bachmann's chances is people like you who have already locked your mind against her. Why don't you wait for a little more dust to settle before you reach a final decision. It seem that as a conservative voter of over 65 years that I, for the most part, have had to choose a Republican because he/she is the lesser of two evils. Ronald Reagan was an easy choice for me. It was so nice to vote for someone because they had all the right attributes instead of "He ain't as bad as the liberal".
I also believe there may never be a third party, although I firmly believe one is needed, for the exact same reason. That is, those of us who are unhappy with the career RINOs keep hearing and repeating that a third party will never succeed.
With that attitude , most pro teams should cancel games with the stronger teams . I mean if you are going to lose a lot to them, why play them?
McCain got votes,because as I was told when I dug into it---"He was a war hero". He tried to appeal to folks on the other side -- and the independents. Another vote against a Dem and not FOR a GOPer. See how that turned out.
So lets see if I understand you 2
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:09pm.
The very same Bachmann who helped turn over more then 780 State and Federal dimwited candidates in 10', is deemed by you 2 political mavens, to be unelectable.
Lets ponder this, as we suffer under a President that has about as much talent and experience as my 18yr old Son.
I am absolutely amazed by our lack of courage. We might could win, if'n we were not afraid too!! Good grief
boudin
Submitted by milootoole on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:57pm.
I really want to thank you for lumping me with Airforce on this. A good way to make friends with me. I said and I repeat what I said is that everything I have seen and read indicates to me that this very competent woman who I would vote for in a New York second is being attacked already by the liberal press and political enemies. I believe that they will be as successful as they were against Palin. Did she win??> No she did not. She deserved to, in my opinion, but if you say the smears heaped upon her did not affect the election, I say you are wrong and you are piping up hope and not reality.
If all Americans came here top NB, then they would find the truth, but until you show me that 5-60 million voters come here to find how competent she is versus the MSM audience listening to their tripe I believe she has an extreme disadvantage. The average inattentive voter will vote for the hair.
How can you conflate what I said with Obama's lack of abilities. You may not have noticed, but he WON. I have been voting for over 50 years. I have seen the good and the unfortunate. I will match my mavenhood to yours any day. I did not intend to argue with a fellow conservative but you pissed me off.
I think you should read my post again.
When you bring up lack of courage-- it was not people like me that said that a third party is out of the question or Palin was not a good candidate. I argue that the MSM laid such a smear trip on Palin that independents did not vote for her. What a shame.
I would remind you that Palin wasn't atop the ticket
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:00am.
McLame was. And his little "run back to DC" like some lunatic is what cost him the election. McCain lost, Palin didn't. He would have lost by a whole lot more without her on the ticket, energizing the base.
That and a gullible electorate who was so in love with electing a "clean, articulate black man".
And look what Palin, and other Tea Party Conservatives (I'd remind you who is the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus) have done to energize the electorate since BHO has tried to implement his vision of socialist America.
BTW, Milo, I wouldn't lump you in with that AF person. Truly, I believe he's a plant.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
hey
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:19am.
I am a tea party person. You obviously think that I thought Palin was at the top of the ticket or you do not remember the feeding frenzy attacking her as her popularity waned because of false smears. There were many women dragged out by the libs to smear her. I may offend some of the ladies here, but I believe that for whatever reason, Palin's attractiveness made her the perfect person to be jealous of.
We can sit here all night and argue what cost the last election, but in spite of my advanced years, I still have a good memory. When Sarah was added to the ticket there was a surge in the polls, a huge surge. Then after non-stop smears by the MSM and interviews with leading female figures in politics and business. The huge surge decreased. It didn't vanish. People like me still thought she was a great addition. And I challenge anyone on this board to say there was not sniping at her right here. I honestly thought that she still added enough for us to win. Post election showed, at least to me, that independents opinions were adversely affected by the smears while they also though how great it would be to shoe the world we are not prejudced in America.
See what that show got us. But that's not the issue here Bachmann has what it takes to run this country--but--look how much press it got when she confused Concord NH with Concord MA. The same tactics used against Palin were rolled out.
I say , with respect, when you can show me that NB has a few million signed up and attracts a daily readership of millions, I believe that Michelle will be "rumored" to death, about religion, motherhood and other issues that should be and are assets.
I have written quite enough about it,. We can let time show us the outcome.
I sincerely hope I am wrong and at this point, Michelle can definitely count on my vote in the primaries unless a clone of Ronald Reagan comes on the scene.
And I know this is not charitable, but may the curse of failure fall on the MSM and those who lie to us via that media.
Arrgh
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:09pm.
I can't believe I'm hearing that women didn't like Palin because she was to attractive. I've got news for all of you men who buy into that, it's b.s. It may serve some egos to think women all that small and petty, but it just isn't so.
I bet I'm more of a
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:30am.
I bet I'm more of a conservative than you, user Blonde . You already called me a mysoginist, and said it was as bad as a racist, which is what liberals LOVE to say the last few years.
I'm sorry you're a female and have gotten all butthurt about me saying a woman should not be president(except Palin). Just my opinion.
I doubt that
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 1:27am.
As for the rest of your comment, you are rude, crude, and otherwise mercenary.
Don't address me again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So you address me to tell me
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 2:21am.
So you address me to tell me to stop addressing you? Stop replying to me then! You are starting to nag me like my wife.:D
Damn, I thought all the members of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:55pm.
...were all dead from old age by now.
Perhaps you should Google Maggie Thatcher.
Or continue to wallow in your own ignorance.
Whatever.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
More nonsense
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:10pm.
Oooh, don't you just love it when someone starts the "I'm more conservative than you are?" stuff. It's sooo reminiscent of my dad can beat up your dad.
When I responded to this,before --
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 1:05am.
I failed to notice that it said "Blonde" and not "Boudin'.
I truly wish to thank you for reminding me that McCain topped the ticket. I am so old that I could only think it was Warren Harding.
I would not have responded, quite the way I did. In fact , I would not have responded at all.
Thank you , very much.
If you want a two-way with Boudin
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 1:30am.
I suggest you take it to a chat room.
This is an open message board.
I was attempting to take some of the sting out of Boudin's comments to you. But hey....No worries, I shan't be responding to you again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
*
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:11pm.
*
Vote for the American in November
Misogyno? Tango Uniform?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:11pm.
I'm cool with that.
My apology's Milootoole
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:13am.
I am truly losing my patience with folks who allow themselves to be manipulated by the media. If this continues, it's over.
As far as lumping you in the same group as AF, I was mistaken.
boudin
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 11:45am.
Not to worry--we are good. I admire your position on Bachmann and on America.
2008
Submitted by mdgiles on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:42am.
Before we write off Bachmann, we should remember that 2008 was an anomaly, in that it brought a lot of people to the polls who don't normally go and it presented a candidate on the Dimocrap side who was something entirely new. Obungler was the shiny new - and incredibly empty - screen unto which everyone who voted for him projected their "hopes and dreams". Well that's over with. His actual performance is no where near what most of his supporters were expecting. Four years ago, when you were in college Obozo, was "cool". Now that you're out of college - with huge loans and you can't find a job - he isn't so "cool". Reality bites. And in 2008, we watched the media commit character assassination on Gov. Palin, and many accepted media "facts" as "facts". Well we've had the opportunity to observe her for ourselves (along with innumerable other incidents and situations), and we've discovered that the media is simply an arm of the DNC and is not to be trusted. Looking back on the Bush administration, the "Miss Me Yet" signs, make a point. Whatever Bush's failings - and he had quite a few - no one - except for some libtards - questioned his basic character. Can you even imagine Bush using the returning dead for a photo op. On the other hand, many - including members of his own party - simply do not trust the Obamboozler. I think almost any GOP candidate will win next fall, the supporters of ObaMao are lukewarm, and apologetic; whereas his opponents hate him with a deep and abiding passion.
Mike
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 11:53am.
If we can spread the word, if we can wake up the slumbering American and esp. the independent, (I am one), we can help her win. It is very important that in this election the MSM is fought tooth and nail to show they bare not journalists, but cheerleaders.
I mean no disrespect when I say that most Americans do not get as deeply involved in finding the truth as those who log in to the web and seek it. Many Americans watch the network news and read the papers and accept what they read. They are not aware that America's MSM is a group of liberal supporters, by and large.
There are very few "journalist:" that write the facts..
Somehow, some way, the smears of the MSM, the words of the uber libs, the Bill Presses and his ilk ,must be exposed.
In agree with you in regard
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:46am.
I agree with you in regard to Romney, and for that matter Perry. But if we can get Rubio on the ticket we get a Tea Party member ELECTED, AND we have a real shot at him being president in eight years. I don't love the idea of Romney, but if that's what it takes to get Rubio in there AND stop Obama NOW, then I'll take it. We can't live thru another four years of Obama to get Rubio in 2016. We have to defeat him next year.
Take a deep breath, Airforceone888...
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:31am.
...and relax, because Bachmann isn't going to be the nominee. One, history shows that the winner of the straw poll usually doesn't get the nomination. Only two people have. Two, in her home state, where she spent a lot of money and energy, she barely beat Ron Paul.
If she IS the nominee, you're right, it will be a disaster, because she can't win. If we nominate her, then we deserve what we get. But I'm not worried, because it's not going to happen. Iowa was her one and only hurrah. She'll be fading from here on out.
This should be our election to lose, but lose it we will with the wrong nominee. And by the way, your girl Palin can't win either.
Good post!
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 6:00am.
I hope you are right . :) I just want to get past this nonsense and get to the business of choosing our nominee. Bachmann shouldn't even be in the discussion. I just hope she goes away quietly. I just read the latest Politico story regarding Perry and Bachmann in Iowa, and it rings true for me. She's a strange person and why she thinks she should be president is beyond me.
Unfortunately, I think you are right about Palin as well. I really like her I just don't think the country will elect a woman..at least not right now.
At the end of the day, imo, the best way for us to get a true conservative in the White House is to get Rubio on a winning ticket as the VP, then he can run for president down the line. I'd prefer Perry over Romney I'm just afraid of how Perry's Texas thing is going to play this soon after Bush.
My gut says Romney/Rubio is the winner. Romney cannot be painted as an extremist by the media, so that satisfies independents, and Rubio is a true conservative and that will satisfy myself and like-minded conservatives.
Ron Paul
Submitted by mdgiles on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:45am.
Haven't we learned yet to ignore anything accomplished by the "Paulistas". Given the chance, they will game every type of vote to make their "revealed one" look like more than the fringe candidate he is.
What is fringe about the
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:53am.
What is fringe about the Constitution?
Nothing
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:42pm.
But Paul and the Constitution are two different things. Major parts of his platform are just plain nuts.
We Are The 53%
Paul has never voted for
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:46pm.
Paul has never voted for anything that is unconstitutional, and there is nothing in his platform that is "just plain nuts".
Sissy Satchmo has never filled in the subject line.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:55pm.
Still waiting for you to start answering up for the other 18 accusations of lies Sissyboy. I proved you lied on one out of the 19. 18 to go milksop. Of course you chose to cut and run again just like every other time.
Ron Paul’s Stunned Silence Wins ‘Awkward Moment’ Award <--- Just plain nuts.
Sick freak...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:59pm.
Absolutely he has.
Unless you can show me where in the Constitution where it calls for Congress to pay for city buses, or to subsidize the shrimp industry.
Oh, and just in case you are dumb enough to whine about earmarks, show me where the earmark process is in the Constitution.
FINALLY, he is campaigning on a PROMISE to VIOLATE his oath of office.
Sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yep, just plain nuts.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:19pm.
Legalize Heroin, and prostitution.
Let Iran get nukes.
Israel created HAMAS?
We shouldn't support our allies?
We Are The 53%
Paul correctly believes that
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:24am.
Paul correctly believes that it is the right of the states to set their own drug laws and that Congress was not given this power by the Constitution. So he's upholding the Constitution and 10th amendment rights, as well as limited government and personal responsibility.
Paul also correctly believes that we have no right to tell any foreign nation how to govern their affairs and that each nation is free to choose their own path. Israel is a nuclear power and has every ability to defend themselves and can prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons if it wishes, which they would do if they didn't have to seek our permission, which is ridiculous.
Paul didn't mean that Israel created the group Hamas from the ground up; he was saying that Israel supported Hamas in the early days and they were allowed to flourish, not unlike how we supported Saddam against Iran or Bin Laden against the Russians. He correctly points out that Israel does bear some responsibility to Hamas' position and strength today. This is basic history.
Paul believes that American treasure and lives should not be given to other nations in the course of their war affairs. In fact, he believes all foreign aid should end. Not only is it a form of wealth redistribution (seizing our tax dollars and giving it to foreign governments), but we are giving money to both sides. In fact, we give more money to Arab nations than we do Israel. That's supporting our allies? It's insane.
Sissyboy Satchmo LIES again. and again. and again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:46am.
Sissyboy Satchmo: Israel is a nuclear power and has every ability to defend themselves and can prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons if it wishes...
More lies from the biggest liar here.
What is the defense from an intercontinental ballistic missile again? Because that is where we put nuclear weapons nowadays. Aw hell, actually for the last 40 years.
It is a LIE that the tiny country of Israel can stop Iran from going nuclear. A VICIOUS PAULTARD LIE.
Israel - population - 7.5 Million. About the same as NEW YORK CITY. Land area - 8,000 square miles
Iran - population 75 Million. Land area - 1,648,000 square miles.
Distance -- 950 to 1400 miles.
Sissy Satchmo: Paul believes... Paul believes... Paul believes... Paul believes... Paul believes...
Does King Paultard believe in running like a scared little sissy when told to back up your accusations against others? Because sissyboy Satchmo has been running for a month after saying my list of 19 Satchmo lies was wrong. Of course, he accidentally let one slip and I proved beyond all doubt sissyboy satchmo LIED.
Still waiting for those other 18 sissy. And you might wanna stop adding to the list of lies as well.
LOL. Population numbers?
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:52am.
LOL. Population numbers? Area? That is also hilarious. They would never let Iran get to the point of having a nuclear weapon. None of this is dependent upon population or land area. You might as well include goldfish per household.
Whatever Sissyboy Satchmo.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:02am.
As usual, you got nothing to back up nothing in your nothing posts. Beclown yourself again. All hail King Beclowner Sissyboy Satchmo.
Yes Sissyboy. Size has nothing to do with it. It is why little Kuwait was able to turn back Iraq all by herself in 1990. Yes, in Sissyboy Satchmo's world, it did go that way.
Size and distance has nothing to do with nothing. Israel has 14 carriers as we all know. Yes, little cut and run sissy. She does.
One lie proved. 18 more to go. Still waiting sissy. Still waiting.
You're trying to compare
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:38am.
You're trying to compare Kuwait with Israel? And somehow because Kuwait could not repel a ground invasion this means Israel can't prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? Funny that you bring up Iraq. Check out what tiny little Israel did to Iraq. You get funnier and funnier.
Prove it Sissy.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:13am.
Iraq is closer, much closer than Iran. And it was a MILITARY ATTACK on a single reactor. Tell us how this equates to STOPPING a nuclear program in Iran. From a country whose F-16's could BARELY make the round trip flight for the attack on the Osirak reactor.
All hail King Beclowner Sissyboy Satchmo.
You say Israel could stop Iran from building an atomic weapon. PROVE IT.
You claim it is hilarious when I say they can't do it alone. PROVE IT.
You claim a tiny country with a population that is the same as New York City, a land mass not much bigger than New York City, located over a 1000 miles from military targets can stop a country 10 times its size from aquiring a nuclear weapon. PROVE IT.
I showed it is difficult if not impossible, the best they could ever hope for is to delay it.
So back it up little sissyman that calls me a liar over and over again. But yeah, based on your history, it is time to cut and run just like you always do.
As usual, Sissyboy Satchmo LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:29am.
The sissyboy talks endlessly about straw men and red herrings and other fallacious arguments and then pulls this crap.
Sissyboy Satchmo: And somehow because Kuwait could not repel a ground invasion this means....
Did not say that Sissyboy Satchmo, I was making an argument based upon JUST ONE of your idiotic statements. One argument in reply to you. ONE. ARGUMENT. ONE. LIAR.
All of my arguments, taken together, size, distance, logistics, dispersement of targets, ALL TAKEN together indicate that Israel alone cannot stop the nuclear program in Iran in my opinion. Something you say is hilarious yet will not PROVE to be so utterly untrue as to be hilarious.
Back it up Sissyboy Satchmo.
Basic geography
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:28am.
You must be out to show how stupid you truly are. A country with a population of 7.5 million doesn't have as many potential soldiers as one with SEVENTY MILLION. A country the size of NJ is easier to defeat than one Iran's size - 25th biggest in the world, IIRC. The distance factor contributes to severe logistical problems.
Take the IDF's Osirak raid of 30 years ago. That was a raid on a physically closer target but the logistical issues were staggering, all the more so for a country that does not readily project power. Sure, they executed the Entebbe raid, but that also was a logistical hassle.
You say Israel won't let Iran go nuclear. Who's to say Iran hasn't gone nuclear already? And how will that be possible? Why, because Incestmo says so?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What do soldiers have to do
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:40am.
What do soldiers have to do with anything?
You tell me, sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:52am.
You tell me. One, you are THE SUPREME EXPERT on every single subject imaginable and you are above questioning. Two, you are the one who whined to The Vet that population numbers and area were irrelevant. I demonstrated how those numbers DO matter.
History - a subject you suck at - is replete with examples demonstrating otherwise. As The Vet wisely pointed out, there was a reason Kuwait got rolled in about two hours time. That's just one example. Yes, Israel did a nice job of taking care of business against larger neighbors in 1967, in a move that no doubt makes a anti-Semite bigot like you very unhappy. But that was due to superior leadership and Israel seizing the initiative. They nearly got their asses kicked in 1973 by those same larger neighbors.
Here's another example for you, out of history (history is - damn, forget it): your beloved Confederacy had 9 million people versus 22 million in the North. Just in terms of population the South was doomed to fail. The reason it hung on as long as it did was due to the leadership of its officer corps.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
and the distance is even more important.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:21am.
The attack on Osirak was the furthest Israel jets could travel. They were not even sure they could make it back. They knew they could not make it back if there was a dogfight.
Although almost out of fuel, all fourteen jets returned to Israeli territory and landed safely.
The distance between Israeli military bases and the reactor site was significant—over 1600 km (1000 miles).
The closest point for Iran is 960 miles. Everything is further away. And as I said, even with Iraq, if there was a dogfight, they could not have had enough fuel to make it home.
Why would I tell you? It's
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:22am.
Why would I tell you? It's your argument. You're the one who believes soldiers are relevant for Israel preventing Iran gaining nuclear arms. So what do soldiers have to do with anything?
Again Sissyboy that whines about Straw Men.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:46am.
If soldiers are not relevant, than Sissyboy Satchmo says the Israel Air Force alone can stop the nuclear program in Iran. Prove your theories have relevance Sissy. Still waiting for you to show how we are so dead wrong as to be hilarious.
But you keep demanding we show one of our arguments taken alone equates to our collection of arguments as a whole. You go sissyboy Satchmo. Unsane saying Israel has a smaller population to field pilots and soldiers EQUATES to the whole argument that Israel alone cannot take down the Iran nuclear program.
Look, dummy,
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 4:36pm.
You asked the question, sick freak. My argument is actually this: that you don't know s*** about military matters OR foreign policy.
I mean, you ARE THE SUPREME EXPERT. You know EVERYTHING. Or so you constantly claim.
What, nuclear weapons self-generate? They deploy and fire and maintain themselves?
In your fantasy land, I suppose this is what happens, as soldiers are 100% irrelevant to you:
Israeli PM Netanyahu: "To the Islamic Republic of Iran, don't build nuclear weapons, or, or, or...or else."
Iranian President Ahmadinejad: "Oh. OK."
In the REAL world, things do not work that way.
Sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"It's insane."
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:52am.
Yes, Incestmo, yes you are.
You know what's amazing, is that every time Ronpaul has a brainfart, it appears at NB as your thoughts.
Satchmo gets to have it both ways.
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:29am.
Isn't it amazing. He already stated that he knows Israel won't allow Iran to have nukes, so he can sit back and declare that Iran should have the right to nuclear weapons. He bashes Israel but counts on them to help make him safer. If this is what Ron Paul has to offer, I'll take........well, pretty much anybody else.
Amen brother.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:52am.
Sissyboy Satchmo goes through post after post after post saying how "noninterventionalist" we should be then all but tells us Israel should be the policeman of the Middle East.
Yeah, it is alright for Israel to intervene when it is not under attack. Almighty Trolljegeren above forbid the only superpower on the planet do the same to protect all of her interests and allies.
King Beclowner Sissyboy Satchmo strikes again.
I've never said Israel should
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:01pm.
I've never said Israel should be the police of the Middle East.
Oh, is this another example of your using hyperbole?
No idiot. It is an observation based upon your posts.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:52pm.
It is an example of your utter utter hypocrisy in demanding we be noninterventionalist yet passively allowing other countries to take preemptive actions to protect themselves.
I have also claimed you are not very bright.
Of that, we have much evidence. Again. Not hyperbole.
You got something else stupid to say?
Also, could we get some more 20 syllable words Paulbots invent to wrap themselves around the pretzel logic that is the King Paultard.
non - 1
in - 2
ter -3
ven -4
tion -5
al -6
ist -7
It's not hypocrisy.
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 1:57pm.
It's not hypocrisy. Apparently you're confused about soveriegnty. Your use of the word "allow" is testament to your confusion. Israel should make its own decisions even if they would not be decisions we would make. It's none of our business if they, or any other country, wish to pursue interventionism or if they wish to engage in offensive military actions against another country.
Not your statement LIAR.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:41pm.
Sissyboy Satchmo: Israel ... can prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.... - Evidence that led to this conclusion? PROVE IT SISSY.
In response to a post that says Israel is to small and far away to do that --- That is also hilarious. --- Your evidence that convinced you the idea is so funny? NONE. PROVE IT SISSY.
About Israel: They would never let Iran get to the point of having a nuclear weapon. --- Evidence Sissy? WOULD NEVER is a hard statement. PROVE IT SISSY.
You're the one who believes soldiers are relevant --- If size and soldiers are not relevant, then what is SISSY?
YOU ANSWER THOSE THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO YOUR SISSY INVERVENINGMOLISMATIONISM CRAP.
You are a coward. A sissy. You make accusations and run. You make stupid statements and lies then run.
We don't play your sissy troll games. YOU MADE STATEMENTS HERE THAT YOU NEED TO COVER BEFORE YOU BROADEN THE ARGUMENT.
...none of our business if they, or any other country, wish to pursue interventionism or if they wish to engage in offensive military actions against another country.
That is a NEW argument when you have not backed up your previous arguments. Sissy.
But yeah, we know.
YOU
HAVE
A
RIGHT
TO
TROLL
Ok, Satchmo.
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:02pm.
I'll ask you again. Last time I asked you disappeared from the thread.
Do YOU think Iran should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?
I disagree with the use of
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 4:56pm.
I disagree with the use of the word allow and reject your question. We don't get to determine what countries can or can't do. Iran is a soverign nation.
Sissy to English Translation ----
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:25pm.
--- Ron Paul won't answer this either. I am not allowed my own thoughts.
Exactly what I would expect
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:33pm.
Exactly what I would expect of you Satchmo.
Thanks, your non-answer speaks volumes.
Really, Incestmo? I disagree with your use of the word soverign.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:39pm.
Primarily because it isn't an actual word.
Just for info,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:56am.
the closest point in Iran, from Israel being 960 miles, equates to 1920 miles round trip, but I doubt that Incestmo could know that.
The unrefueled operational range of Israel's newest F-16I is about 800 nautical miles. For Incestmo, that means that they couldn't make it there and back. And, I doubt that Iraq, Saudia Arabia or Syria would grant Israel overfly rights to enable them to refuel their F-16I's on their way in or out.
Another Amen brother.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:09pm.
Not to step on your point but to clarify mine. Israel flew with external tanks to make the attack on Osirak. Even then, they had to drop the tanks while still holding their bombs. Something never done or tested. Like I said, it was the absolute furthest they could go even with external fuel tanks. And I will back up my statement about the dogfight. Backing something up - try that just once Sissyboy Satchmo. Once.
From Lieutenant-Colonel's Ze'ev Raz - (squadron's leader and leader of the attack) briefing :
The route:"We are about to fly a course over Eilat and Aquaba, and then south of Jordan along Saudi-Arabia's border. This route is planned to avoid Arab villages and cities where we might be discovered, so we will fly over desert area until Baghdad. This is not the shortest path to fly, but it would avoid radar detection, so we will remain undetected just until we get over target. On the way to the target we will fly at an altitude of 150 ft. On our way back we will fly at high altitude. We are short on fuel. Those who get engaged in dogfights won't make it back."
Not doing this to correct or even add to my fellow trolljegeren here. Just throwing in something I learned and maybe pass it along. Another foreign concept to the sissy.
You're focusing on the
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:23pm.
You're focusing on the tactical aspects instead of focusing on the results.
Bottom line: Israel prevented Iraq from going nuclear.
Sissyboy Satchmo LIES again. and again. and again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:45pm.
The Coward Satchmo LIES again: Israel prevented Iraq from going nuclear.
Israel's attack was the SECOND attack on the reactor.
In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osiraq. On 30 September 1980 a a pair of Iranian Phantom jets, part of a larger group of aircraft attacking a conventional electric power plant near Baghdad, also bombed the Osiraq reactor. Minor damage to the reactor was reported. No further Iranian air attacks against Iraqi nuclear facilities were identified during the rest of the seven-year war.
Idiot.
Liar.
Iraq was already nuclear. The plant was operational.
Israel prevented Iraq from using the reactor to create fuel for nuclear weapons at the Osirak plant.
Idiot.
Liar.
oh.my.god.
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:01pm.
oh.my.god.
Sissyboy to English translation ---
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:20pm.
--- Whoops. Got busted in another stupid.
Exactly, Vet!
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:22pm.
This is the point in the debate where Satchmo has been thoroughly proven wrong and will declare that you don't understand the topic so he can't have a converstation with you.
He will then march back under his bridge waiting for the next thread to cross.
Trolls are quite stupid.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:35pm.
Sissyboy Satchmo: You're focusing on the tactical aspects...
uh. duh. We were responding to this statement.
Sissyboy Satchmo: Israel ... can prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons....
And how would they tactically do that Retard? What with the small size, distance, and whatnot. But my and others posts did say that again and again. and again. and again. and again.
And we were responding to this statement.
Sissyboy Satchmo: They would never let Iran get to the point of having a nuclear weapon.
Never? How? But we did discuss that through 20 some odd posts. Didn't we? How would they tactically NEVER LET Iran get a nuclear weapon RETARD?
Trolls just don't think things through. But let's just expand the conversation to some Ron Paul talking point becuase seriously monkeypeople this is getting too too too sticky for one not so bright troll.
Sissy Satchmo.
Coward.
Idiot.
Troll.
Oh I forget.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:39pm.
Trolls can't get a little fact like the operaton of the nuclear plant PRIOR to Israel bombing it.
But fer Gawd's sake, you monkeypeople trust the troll on the big issues cuz yeah, it will never get suntin like that wrong. Yeah, those things --- research research research --- troll is all over it. Rilly.
Tactics? Ahhh. Not gonna worry about that. Let the monkeypipple worry about tactics. Iz juz gonna say it happenz. That is what monkeypeople is for - thinking.
Fundamentals you fail to grasp
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 4:44pm.
Actually, he focused on something else more fundamental (and thus beyond your grasp): logistics.
Israel, as powerful as the IDF is, lacks the ability to project power. It took out the Osirak reactor, but just barely. And the squadron that led the attack nearly got caught in the act. One account I read noted that some of the fighters got caught by Saudi radar, but fortunately they had a pilot that communicated with the Saudis in perfect Arabic, saying they were actually a Jordanian air patrol.
If Osirak - near Baghdad - is barely within the grasp of the IDF, how in the hell are they going to go to Iran? As far as I know Israel has no aerial tankers and no ability for aerial refueling - the ONLY way they have a chance.
Military operations are a bit trickier than you realize, sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Further info...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:25pm.
The distance to the Iraqi reactor which was destroyed by Israeli F-16As in 1981 was approximately the same distance, well beyond the normal range of the F-16. Refueling was not an option, so the aircraft were stripped to the bone, fuel tanks added and then jettisoned en route, and all defensive armament was removed, thus providing the increased range requirements.
Jer
Damn the history perfessor.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:41pm.
And that is in a good way Mister. You going from memory? That extra 22 Exabytes I had installed in your brain helping out Johnny Mnemonic?
Memory refreshed, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:18pm.
by watching for about the third time a documentary of the raid which was co-incidentally re-aired on the Military Channel just this morning. But the Exabytes definitely helped. :-)
Jer
More intellectual dishonesty
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:02pm.
More intellectual dishonesty from NC Cop, but that's what you get with poor reading comprehension, I guess.
1. We have no right telling other countries what they can and can't do, Israel and Iran included. Let them forge their own paths. If Iran is a threat to Israel, then it is Israel's sovereign right to defend itself how they see fit, even if is preemptively. It is not our sovereign right to insert our treasure and lives and resources into it. This is not having it both ways.
2. I have never once bashed Israel. I am not counting on them making us safer because that is not their role or purpose, nor should it be. Iran does not have the capacity to reach the United States and is no military danger to our shores.
Have you ever, once in your misbegotten career, here,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:16pm.
ever given thought to one nuclear weapon and one shipping container? You know, a 40'. 48' or 53' shipping container? How difficult would it be to encase one nuke in one shipping container and send it here? Your "mind" can't wrap itself around anything that Ronpaul doesn't embrace, so, no, you aren't to be taken serious.
In simple words that even you should be able to comprehend, Iran with a nuclear weapon is a danger to any country, the U.S. especially.
And don't forget.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:20pm.
No one among the Arab states likes the problemboy that is Iran. A nuclear Iran can only lead to a nuclear arms race among a region chock full of dictators and thugs. Something the planet really does not need.
UpNorth
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:08pm.
I don't beleive Satch ever had an origianal thought in his life. He's a typical Neville Chamberlain disciple. Don't do anything until it's on our doorstep. Worked out well in 9/11, didn't it????
People like Satchmo have absolutely no clue what is in the real world so they must arrive at their conclusions and theories in their fairy tale land of unicorns and gumdrops.
I've never seen anything like it before in my life. I pray to God people who "think" like this never take charge of this country.
NC Cop, you're right,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 4:20pm.
he's never had a thought. I won't even try to qualify it as original.
Good line about Chamberlain, I think that ronpaul may be good ole Neville reincarnated.
As to real world experience, it's hard to get that experience when you spend 24-7 in mom's basement, or under the bridge.
As for his fairy tale land, I think it consists of magical shrimp and subsidized buses.
9/11 is a result of
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 5:10pm.
9/11 is a result of interventionism.
Incestmo blaming America first last and always
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 5:30pm.
America is never attacked because it is too strong, sick freak.
Being a whiny pissant like you want America to be only invites more trouble. But as you suck at history, you won't and can't understand that basic fundamental truth.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, the ones who commited the
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 5:52pm.
No, the ones who commited the acts are responsible and are to be blamed, but it is naive to think that our involvement in the Middle East had nothing to do with it. We were not attacked on 9/11 because we were too strong.
Xenophobe
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 7:03pm.
Exactly. We were attacked on 9/11/01 because the bastards who did it thought we were too WEAK. And your solution? Why, make the United States, who YOU consider to be the problem in the world, into the weakest, whiniest country possible.
You are going to have to deal with the fact that there are other countries in the world, and that within those countries opportunities are found. Hermetically sealing off the United States from the rest of the world is a policy that is doomed to failure. Not to mention completely impossible.
The United States is a nation built on trade, as much as it horrifies xenophobes like you and your pipsqueak hero. This REQUIRES the United States to interact with nations and cultures around the world. This in some cases REQUIRES "involvement" with other countries. For one thing, if not for this country, the Middle East and the world would be vastly different. Who taught them how to drill for oil? Who taught the rest of the world how to drill for oil? Hmmmmm?
You xenophobic sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
We were not attacked because
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:51pm.
We were not attacked because they thought we were too weak.
In all this time I've posted here, you have never once accurately described any belief or position I hold. Not once. Instead you just make them up. I still feel sorry for you.
Is reading history that freaking hard for you?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:07pm.
We were, in fact, attacked because they didn't think we would do anything about it. Previous terrorist attacks went more or less un-punished, such as WTC attack #1, the embassy bombings in Africa (answered by TWO WHOLE CRUISE MISSILE STRIKES!), and the bombing of the Cole. The terrorists who planned and executed the WTC attacks of 11 September 2001 thus, understandibly, translated this as weakness on the part of the United States.
Why can't you even grasp recent history, sick freak? Do you suck at history that badly?
I have absolutely been dead-on accurate about you from the first.
1) You are a sick freak who condones incest.
2) You would be an anarchist if not for your love of the happy idea (in your mind) of the government charging 23% extra on everything I buy, but then turning around and handing out monthly allowance money to every American.
3) No matter what happens in the world, you blame America first, and you think all the problems in this world would be solved if we simply turned America from a superpower into a whiny pushover ostrich country.
4) In your world, city buses and the funding of the shrimp industry are Constitutional even though I can't find any place in the Constitution where they are mentioned. I say that because of your slavish love for the pipsqueak Paul, and your constantly saying "He supports the Constitution" when he clearly does not.
5) Given your support of the von Mises Institute, and your love of racist bigots like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, you are most definitely a racist bigot.
6) You claim to love the Constitution more than anyone else yet nothing makes you fly off the handle faster than the mere suggestion that it must be defended. Thus, I accurately pointed out you are a spoiled ingrate who thinks your freedoms and liberties are there just for the asking.
Those are just a few I can think of. I'm sure The Vet can think of even more.
You don't like me accurately describing your beliefs? Good. Then you can stop posting on NB.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Spare me the
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:46pm.
Spare me the "interventionism" B.S.
This country has shed more blood and treasure to free other people, including millions of muslims, than any other.
We were attacked because EXTREMISTS warped the minds of others into believing that we were oh so terrible and needed to be destroyed. Just because the weak minded actually bought that crap doesn't mean it was OUR fault.
Believe me, Satchmo, had this country always had and maintained an attitude like yours towards foreign policy, we would not exist today.
If I cared what you thought
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:29pm.
If I cared what you thought about anything, I'd ask you.
We don't care what you say about anything
Submitted by sentry_99 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:22am.
Yet here you are....so cram it.
That's all you got???
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:54am.
That's all you got??? LOL!!!
Typical Satchmo, so predictable, so ignorant, so misinformed.
So, you buy the Former OBL's line of
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:34pm.
BS? That figures, that falls right in with your worship of the Shrimp Man and anti-semite, ronpaul.
What's next, incestmo, you gonna tell us those 3000 people deserved to die, because of US interventionism?
Hey gwin
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:17pm.
I've a stat for you. No incumbent has every one a second term with unemployment over 7%. Take that little factoid and shove it.
yea
Submitted by Tjexcite on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:23pm.
But when the incumbent is a black man that people only hate him because he is black he will win. /gwin and will make sure of it.
Obama is Black?
Submitted by mdgiles on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:56am.
Gee, I didn't like him the moment I heard of him; and I've been black all 62 years of my life. In reality, ObaMao has little or nothing in common with average life experience - good or bad - of the average African-American. The only commonality is the color of his skin. And that could be said to be camouflage. For all intents and purposes, Obungler is a white upper middle class, leftist academic. "Scrub" off the skin color and he would be at home on most left wing college campuses. OTOH, I believe that if you drop him among blacks as Barry Obama, he would be at a loss. Major difference in concerns and outlook. Think about it, how often does "The Messiah" speak in front of a black audience? It's far easier - and more comfortable - for him to stand in front of any given audience of left loons.
Venom ? I never made one personal attack
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:29pm.
against Bachmann or anyone else. Unless you consider saying she's un-electable a personal attack, which I bet some of you do. You sound like an overly sensitive liberal. You care nothing about this country if you even entertain the idea of MB getting the nomination. Like I said I would actually like to WIN this next election and not risk another Obama admin. I'm not sure this country can survive it...not that you care.
I hope the liberal media rips her apart and keeps as many of my fellow republicans as possible from voting for her.
So, I think your wrong
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:33pm.
Big time. A dead snake could beat that rat
Are you willing to take that chance?
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:53pm.
That's the issue. This country has NEVER elected a woman as president...NEVER.
Are you REALLY prepared to take that chance with THIS particular president in office??
I am not.
And I bet I'll get grief for this, but I don't think women should be serving in combat, nor do I think a woman would make a good president, except perhaps Sarah Palin.
If this were any other year, or it was Obama's second term already and it was an open election, I would support Palin, but I cannot even support her this particular election. Too much is a stake. I'm telling you guys this president we have cares NOTHING for this country and I refuse to support some random congresswoman from Minnesota in an election as important as this one.
I cannot believe any true republicans would. I just can't.
Take what chance?
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:59pm.
Remember, this is your hyperbole were talking about, not mine.
I think Bachmann and every other candidate will mop the floor with Obama.
yeah right...
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:01pm.
Bachmann is going to be the first woman president, and you say I am talking gibberish
AF1888
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:03pm.
I don't agree with your Muslim beliefs concerning the inferiority of women.
Sorry, I'm a southern Christian in Tulsa, Oklahoma
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:03pm.
and women should not be cops, in combat, or president.
→ Now you've outed yourself, 1888
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:19pm.
A woman shouldn't be president?
You see, AF1888, it has nothing to do with Bachmann, personally, it has to do with your personal belief in the inferiority of women.
You're dismissed.
Whoop
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:32pm.
There it is!
Try reading everything here.
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:52pm.
Try reading everything here. I already said I'd support Palin. At least she ran a state and has executive experience. What has Michelle Bachmann ever done besides get elected in some rinky dink district in Minnesota???
Pure crap. Some of the
Submitted by NC Cop on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:39pm.
Pure crap. Some of the finest officers I've worked with have been women.
99% of the time with a
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:50pm.
99% of the time with a violent suspect a woman needs a man to back her up. I wouldn't partner with a woman, period. This is really off topic though.
If you say it's off topic
Submitted by NC Cop on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:54pm.
If you say it's off topic then ok, but you brought it up.
However, if you could please show me your source on your "99%" statement.
I agree I brought it up, not
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:17pm.
I agree I brought it up, not accusing you of the one going off topic, it was me. :)
As far as the 99% comment, I stand by it. My opinion is that 99% of women would be overpowered by your average male. My source is just my opinion. :)
Seems everything is your opinion
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:14am.
For all it's worth, that and a Buck 50 will get you a cup of coffee.
if you don't like my opinion
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:16pm.
if you don't like my opinion then ignore it already :)
I would,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:20pm.
If you were not insisting it were fact.
My opinions mostly turn in to
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:04pm.
My opinions mostly turn in to facts eventually :)
~That's not how you spell 'farts'
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:19pm.
.
Ba-Dum-Bum. Ching.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:57pm.
My goodness. They need to declare a no fly zone around the ballpark because that one showed up on O'Hare's radar.
You've obviously never been to NYC.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:17pm.
More like 55%.
Tell me, AF
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:02pm.
You said you are a Rubio fan, inasmuch as you paired him with both of the nice hair gentlemen in the race.
So can you enumerate for me, the issues where Bachmann and Marco Rubio differ?
Take your time, there's a wealth of information available. Compare their votes. Bachmann heads the Tea Party Caucus in the House, and Rubio is a Tea Party Senator (but not THE senator, I'd have to give that to Jim DeMint). Oh, I live in Florida, and I supported Marco back when he was a 30 point underdog to RINO McCrist, so no b.s., please.
A simple compare and contrast will do.
You may find that your only reason (as I suspect) is because Bachmann is a woman. To which I would say, so was the OTHER great conservative leader of the 20th century, Reagan's sister from a different mother, the Iron Lady, Maggie Thatcher.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You're hunch is right
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:26pm.
Yes, it's because she is a woman. I don't believe she can win the presidency. I think Rubio could after being VP for two terms. He needs some experience and the VP slot would help...PLUS it would be good for him to be there to keep either Romney or Perry honest to Tea Party principals.
Everyone keeps missing my point. All this Thatcher, Reagan's sister stuff is great talk....but a woman is not going to WIN. I want to WIN in 2012.
For the sake of argument, if Obama wins in 2012, I would support a Palin run 2016. She is the only woman I would support...BUT not this year.
I don't hate women, but I do love to win presidential elections and women don't do that.
Your answer is nonsensical, AF
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:38pm.
Articulate their POSITION ON ISSUES. Bachmann vs. Rubio. Votes, or their positions from their websites/position papers, I don't care. But I want you to show me where they differ.
If you can't or won't do that, to prove that Bachmann is a lesser candidate with less conservative positions than Rubio, you, my friend, have failed. Both in your argument, and as a human being.
Maggie Thatcher successfully waged a war. Poof, there goes your proof on that score.
A woman is NOT GOING TO WIN until a woman has been nominated. Period.
Tick tock. We're all waiting to see this bit of persuasion on your part. Because "she's a woman" isn't cutting it.
In fact, I'm beginning to suspect you're merely a liberal potted plant with a new hook.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Damn man they don't
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:54pm.
Damn man they don't differ.
You said:
"You may find that your only reason (as I suspect) is because Bachmann is a woman"
I am just confirming your suspicion! Her being a woman is all the reason I need because if she were the republican nominee the dems would win! I want Tea Party beliefs to be implemented, not talked about.
I don't even give a rat's ass what Bachmann's positions are! She Can't win the presidency, therefore her position will never be put into action.
I'd also really love to know what Bachmann has ever done for some of you to trust her with the presidency??? All she ever did is get elected a congresswoman from Minnesota, and she thinks that qualifies her to be president. At least Romney and Perry have run a state and have executive experience. Rubio could get experience thru being VP while at the same time helping to IMPLEMENT Bachmann's/Tea Party beliefs, but unlike her, do more than just talk about them. Rubio can actually get elected!!!
As far as me being a liberal, accusing someone of being a troll or not being what they represent themselves to be is nothing new on the internet, so have at it. Believe what you want.
First of all
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:54pm.
I'm not a man.
You have proven yourself to be an ignorant misogynist, which is just as bad as being a racist....you are dismissed.
Go troll somewhere else, no one here is interested in your opinion.
[Edit] Great. First we have Incestmo, now we have Misogyno.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'm not surprised you have
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:17am.
I'm not surprised you have resorted to personal attacks. Your arguments are bankrupt of any common sense.
And you were interested in my opinion enough to argue with me, then when your arguments fail, you call me names. Typical woman. :D(that's a joke, because the typical woman has way more maturity than do you. Typical you are not)
You admitted you are a misogynist
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:20am.
No personal attack there, big guy.
You are one big fat failure. I didn't even put forth an argument. I challenged you to present a rationale, by comparing Bachmann to Rubio (whom you prefer because of his extra appendage, apparently). You failed, due to your irrational fear of a woman.
And just like Incestmo, you've made your own bed, so enjoy lying in it.
See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"see ya, wouldn't want to be
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:32am.
"see ya, wouldn't want to be ya"
you sound like you're twelve. :)
I thought you dismissed me. Quit replying to me already. :D
She dismissed you,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:09am.
But your still here, when you leave we will all quit replying to you
Then you better get your
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:18pm.
Then you better get your fingers ready because I'm going nowhere. :) In fact, I think I'm going to be here more often and post more as well. I'm enjoying it.
Good,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:22pm.
Have at it,
Thanks but I didn't need you
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:04pm.
Thanks but I didn't need you permission :)
I didnt give it
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 6:58pm.
If it were me, I wouldnt let trolls post
Boudin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:14pm.
And thanks to the powers that be at NB, he's oooouuuttt.
Sadly, I have the feeling he'll be back.
HeHe Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:25pm.
AF forgot something. True he doesn't need Boudin's permission to post but he does need NB's....LOL
Come on guys. Give AirFranceFlight-888 a chance.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:12pm.
A woman can't win the Presidency. No way. No way in hell. A woman would have just as much chance as, oh I don't know, say a black man winning the Presidency. Because you know.... Wait.... Just a sec... My cell phone. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Really? When? Really? Ok.
Never mind.
Blonde -- well all the men
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:05pm.
Blonde -- well all the men have done such a bang up job recently...
Obama, McCain, Biden, Gore...
this is hilarious. Maggie Thatcher was elected in 1979, in stuffy old Britain. I think in 2011 America another conservative woman can get elected.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
I don't hate women either
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:27am.
I don't hate women either, my mother was one.
"I do love to win presidential elections and women don't do that."
Please list each election and the names of the women who ran for president.
BTW:
Indira Gandhi
Angela Merkel
Benazir Bhutto
Golda Meir
The above are women who were strong and successful leaders. There are more but the ones above were elected , some of them, in "backward" countries. Doesn't say much for us , eh???
Yes my mother was a woman
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:39am.
Yes my mother was a woman too. :)
Here is your list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_a...
The fact of the matter is this:
If a woman could get elected next year as a REPUBLICAN, I'd support her. I just want to WIN.
Even after all my ranting, if Michelle Bachmann wins the nomination I will still vote for her. We'll lose, but I'll vote for her.
~Hey Eeyore
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:44pm.
Now that you've pissed, moaned, whined, mewled, and puked all over the thread, perhaps you could drag your crybaby, defeatist little tail over to some other site you want to dump on.
When Palin/Bachmann wins next year I'll come back to this thread and tapdance on your grave.
You're whacked in the head if
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:52pm.
You're whacked in the head if you think that ticket would win! :D Two women on the ticket...what planet are you from?
Venus
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:56pm.
Silly little man.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:59pm.
I may have figured out what "888" means in the new troll. http://www.lead411.com/company_SEIULocal888_1542010.html
8 is my lucky number and it
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:06pm.
8 is my lucky number and it also stands for 8 years, which is what GWB served and when I started using the username(not here but in general)
Airforcetroll
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:10pm.
I could have 'stretched' that '888' to correlate with a popular prison analogy. But i wont go there.
Back for more I see after you
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:09pm.
Back for more I see after you said several times you were done. I'm starting to think you've got a crush on me. :)
Hey if you think a Palin/Bachmann ticket would win, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But that opinion is exactly why I started posting in this thread. It's just nuts to think in such ways when we have an election to win next year.
Amazonia.
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:01pm.
Amazonia.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
~'Like'
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:27pm.
.
~It actually indicated either/or
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:03pm.
but you just go ahead and dwell on the idea. It'll be good for your blood pressure.
Well, Bachmann believes we
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:57am.
Well, Bachmann believes we shouldn't be intervening in Libya while Rubio favors aggressive regime change.
Well I myself support regime
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:20pm.
Well I myself support regime change, just not by this administration. They can't be trusted to do it correctly. For this reason I do not support the Libya campaign. If a republican were in charge I would feel differently.
Another neo-con.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:50pm.
Another neo-con.
Again
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:03pm.
Once again you show what a hate-filled racist bigot you are, just like your God.
Sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Once again you show your
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:29am.
Once again you show your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
"Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in other countries. The movement emerged during the early 1970s among Democrats who disagreed with the party's growing opposition to the Vietnam War and had become skeptical of the Great Society's welfare programs."
Neoconservatives were Democrats who were hawks and favored an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. They migrated over to the Republican Party and infected it.
Educate yourself for once.
Sissyboy Satchmo LIES again. and again. and again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:55am.
Sissyboy Satchmo brings a cut and paste from wikipedia. Of course Sissyboy purposely left out that part of the article that backs up Unsane's accusation of racism and bigotry.
Some writers and intellectuals have argued that criticism of neoconservatism is often a euphemism for criticism of Zionist Jews, and that the term has been adopted by the political left to stigmatize support for Israel. ... Time magazine's Joe Klein has suggested it is legitimate to look at the religion of neoconservatives. ...
David Brooks derided the "fantasies" of "full-mooners fixated on a... sort of Yiddish Trilateral Commission", beliefs which had "hardened into common knowledge... In truth, people labeled neocons (con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in widely different circles..."[76] Barry Rubin argued that the neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:[77]
FROM THE VERY DAMN SAME ARTICLE.
I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - that
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:56am.
I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - that liberals would try to smear people as racists. Brooks and Joe Klein? You're funny. Delusional and mentally unstable, but in a way, funny.
It was your source Sissy.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 3:00pm.
Sissy to English translator: Damn, busted in another stupid.
And it's been your smear long
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 5:12pm.
And it's been your smear long before I made that post. Brooks, Klein, and leftists. Nice company you keep.
It was your source Sissy.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:41pm.
It is your fault leftists are racist just like it is America's fault she was attacked on 9/11.
Bigot
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:31am.
Take your own advice, you hate-filled racist bigot.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
~Plant
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:51pm.
"Gee, what would a neo-con say? Oh yeah, wars are awesome when Repubs are running them! Yeah!!"
I'm just a moral person who
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:55pm.
I'm just a moral person who believes dictators shouldn't be allowed to be in power and oppress human beings just because we are too lazy to do something about it. Not only that, the guy did kill many Americans in the Pan AM bombing, but it's not like you care about that.
~Oh look, he's reading my mind
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:15pm.
I love it when trolls do that.
If I were a troll I would get
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:20pm.
If I were a troll I would get an award for baiting you over and over. The SAD part is YOU are advocating a Palin/Bachmann ticket and you call ME a troll.
that is a loser ticket and only a liberal(or a woman who thinks she's a conservative who hangs out at NewsBusters) could conceive of such a thing so Obama would get reelected next year.
~You ARE going to get an award
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:22pm.
You'll know what it is pretty soon. Why don't you keep parading your misunderstanding of my post around, it makes you look so smart.
~Oh, I see he's already gotten his award
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:06pm.
I wish him much enjoyment of it.
Well I hope he's happy now
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:53am.
: ] I am.
There's nothing moral about
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:47pm.
There's nothing moral about seizing a person's wealth in order to go on the other side of the world and attack a sovereign nation.
Yep, it's a plant.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:58pm.
We are too lazy to do something about it? Since when is the US the ultimate authority in the world on who can run sovereign countries? Revenge for PanAm? 25 years later?
Thinking like yours would lead to world war 3.
We Are The 53%
"Since when is the US the
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:26am.
"Since when is the US the ultimate authority in the world on who can run sovereign countries?"
Cognitive dissonance. You were just calling this same position "just plain nuts" above.
You are lying again, SatchelMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 1:21pm.
(What a surprise)
Denny Crane made four points in his above post.
The one you are apparently alluding to was "Let Iran get nukes", as being just plain nuts.
An obvious truth, but nowhere did he say anything that would conflict with his "Since when---" statement.
Did you fail to note the word 'ultimately' in that statement.?
You go on and on and on about other people's inability to read, comprehend, or think; then you proceed to lie like a g-damned rug.
You truly are a slimy piece of sh*t.
One who lowers the IQ level of NewsBusters exponentially every time you post.
MD
Your posts, name calling, and
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:06pm.
Your posts, name calling, and profanity have never shown you to harbor any intelligence, but this one takes the cake.
Well, SatchelMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:47pm.
if I somehow gave the impression that I think you are a slimy, lying, dorkmeister, a disliked, disrespected, clueless, mega-mouthed, worthless, mouth-breathing, prevaricating poseur who posts time after time with nothing but denials as to what you actually posted, which is there for all to see, then I have failed miserably.
I just wasn't harsh enough.
In truth, you are either too damned stupid, or too egotistical to see or accept the fact that you are considered by most who reply to you to be a lame-brained, superficial, pompous ass who thinks he is both an intellectual giant and political maven.
You are nothing of the sort.
You are a fool, a jerk, a butt-head, a cracked-head, a nimrod, and an arse-wipe.
And those are your good qualities.
The mouth-breathing I can understand, as it cuts way down on how much of your own stench has to be inhaled.
You haven't seen anything directed at you in the way of profanity as far as compared to what you deserve for your unlimited, ongoing, irrational and completely insulting babble on these threads.
Everything I have said so far about you pales in comparison to your absolute degeneracy as it relates to your stance on incest.
Hell, you even continue to lie about exactly what you first said reference incest that resulted in hellfire being brought down on your head.
They just don't come any nastier or more fruitcake than you, Satchmo.
You are truly a disgusting individual.
MD
Yeppers.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 2:56pm.
Sissyboy Satchmo: Israel ... can prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons....
Sissyboy Satchmo: They would never let Iran get to the point of having a nuclear weapon.
Response. Post. Response. Post. Response. Post. How? Israel is small and too far away... Blah Blah Blah.
Sissyboy Satchmo: You're focusing on the tactical aspects...
Every single word matthewdean sez. Every damn single word.
~The only backup a woman needs with a violent suspect
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:03pm.
is her trusty sidearm.
That's just not reality.
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:25pm.
That's just not reality. Police don't usually shoot anyone for resisting. Plus, a suspect is a lot less likely to resist a male. Hey women can be officers if they want and I applaud their service. I would not partner with one though.
~Fact
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:20am.
The badge and uniform are what command respect, because they are symbols of the authority the officer represents. What is standing inside of that uniform, whether short, tall, male, or female, is irrelevant. If police officers have to depend on their own physical presence to enforce the authority they represent, something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.
That said, I personally do not approve of ever sending women into harm's way. I have a pretty poor opinion of any society that doesn't treat it's women better than that. Cave men didn't expect their women to hunt their own food (modern version: work outside the home for their living) or fight in their battles for them, for goodness sake. In the name of "equality" feminism has destroyed the position of honor formerly occupied by womanhood, and women are raped, murdered, and abused in greater numbers then they were before their great 'liberation'.
It's like I always say, Bru,
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:02pm.
The reason why brides where white is because men like their dishwashers to match their refrigerators.
****DUCKING FOR COVER****
~Five years ago
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:37pm.
when I was pregnant with baby #2, a friend of mine called while I was busy cooking dinner. I asked hubby to answer it for me, and when he told me who it was I said, "Tell her I'm barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove. I'll call her back later."
He laughed, choked, coughed, and relayed the message. He still tells that story...
~What fabulous timing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 2:49pm.
That's just not reality. Police don't usually shoot anyone for resisting.
Like I can't go and find
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:59pm.
Like I can't go and find stories of cops being punched and the suspect taking off running, but the cops still don't shoot. I'd go search for them but I'm not going to waste my time on another butt hurt woman with thin skin who thinks a Palin/Bachmann ticket is the way to go.
Ronald Reagan said it best*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:23pm.
Americans tend to elect a common man, one of them, to the office of President. Then that man must rise to the level of the position.
Man is a generic term, could mean woman as well. Several Presidents have shown great qualifications for President and then took the position into the sewer, like Obama.
Why would a woman not be give the same opportunity?. Women are strong when needed, like giving birth. And who do you think gave birth to all those marines and Navy Seals? Threaten a child in the presence of his mother....why do you think they are called "grizzly mamas"?
If it was a great achievement for Americans to elect the first black man as President, lets make history by electing a woman. A woman is always better at cleaning up some guys mess anyway.
~I don't want to hear what happened to you
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:24pm.
I've listened to enough whining already. I'm sure she was much bigger than you, and you weren't feeling well that day, and you tripped on something, the sun was in your eyes, blah blah blah.
Even police disagree with your misogyny
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:31pm.
A suspect is actually MORE likely to resist a male because we are more aggressive and rely more heavily on our physicality for conflict resolution.
"I’ve supervised female officers in patrol during my assignment to the Violent Crime Suppression Unit and as a supervisor on the SWAT team. I can’t remember any incidents where a female officer was accused of being overly aggressive and involved in an excessive force allegation [of misconduct]. I believe female police officers are generally smooth talkers.” Says Sgt. Marty True, a 20 year veteran of the Fresno PD who was a 16 year veteran of the SWAT team.
I don't care what anyone
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:01pm.
I don't care what anyone says, I wouldn't partner with a woman. If a suspect is on top of me I want another male there able to pull him off. Just my opinion.
You wouldn't have a choice numb nut
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:05pm.
Obviously your screen name has nothing to do with military service or you would know that already.
No it doesn't have anything
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:12pm.
No it doesn't have anything to do with military service. Although i did in fact serve.
Article 92 UCMJ
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:25pm.
Most departments have similiar regulations and orders concerning insubordination. "I wouldn't work with a female" does not exist.
~There ya have it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:17pm.
He anticipates being in need of rescue and he doesn't want a woman to do it.
That's funny, I don't care who y'are.
"I don't care what anyone
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:22pm.
"I don't care what anyone says, I wouldn't partner with a woman...."
Okay, you can have Pee Wee Herman...I'll take Annie Oakley.
True story: One year at our annual 4th of July carnival, the local police force was summoned to arrest "The Lady of Steel" who had gotten a bit rowdy after consuming a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon, whereupon, wielding only one of her shoes, she proceeded to thoroughly pummel the Chief and two of his deputies before finally being subdued by about a half-dozen carneys. Yeah, brute strength was a decisive factor in that instance. But training, guile, quick thinking, and discretion are generally the more critical factors in law enforcement and are not gender specific.
Jer
A case of PBR?
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:27pm.
Might have respected the lady if she had consumed a case of good Belgian!
Back then the county was so dry I don't think it was
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:51pm.
even legal to purchase rubbing alcohol. But through some nefarious arrangement--I suspect involving pay-offs, official corruption and kick-backs--the pool hall down on the bad end of town always had a cooler well-stocked with PBR. I assume they also had a contract with the carnival folks.
Jer
One day, I will tell you about,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:29pm.
Being a young man of 18, and a 200lbs lifeguard on the Atlantic coast, I was nearly drowned by an 85lbs child.
Nicely done, Sentry
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:09pm.
AF, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but actually being someone who works with female officers I can tell you, your opinions are quite misguided.
I respect your opinion as
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:14pm.
I respect your opinion as well. I know many police officers. I go on ride-alongs about every two months or so. Some police officers agree with me, some do not. I understand that. It's just my opinion.
Fair enough.
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 4:15pm.
Agree to disagree.
woman leader???
Submitted by milootoole on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:07pm.
""That's the issue. This country has NEVER elected a woman as president...NEVER.""
A woman never ran before. BTW this country had never elected a black President before either. NEVER.
---and what woman was PM before Thatcher??/
The leadership that is needed to head this country is not restricted by the physical ability of a person to perform in combat. It requires wisdom, experience, PATRIOTISM, love of country and a sense of what is best and who to choose for key positions in the government.
So far, IMO, Bachmann has not only held her own, but leads in some categories.
PS Let's kick Brewer out as Governor of Arizona. Her balls are too big!!!
PPS If Bachmann continues to shine as she goes forward, You betcha , I am willing to take that chance.
milo---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:03pm.
I just can NOT believe you are against your country because you might "consider" Michele Bachmann as a viable candidate for President..
But, if Air Force One says so ---
:o)
MD
Sorry, even considering her
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:13pm.
Sorry, even considering her as a viable presidential candidate expresses a complete lack of intelligence in American politics.
The Ron Paul types are losers(politically) and always will be.
lack of intelligence in American politics.
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:35pm.
Says the new guy? You do realize most of us here are political junkies, and not impressed with your credentials?
I couldn't care less who you
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:48pm.
I couldn't care less who you are how long you've been here or how impressed(or not) you are with me or my credentials.
Some of you can't see the forest for the trees.
So you think she's a viable presidential candidate. I don't. We'll see who knows what they're talking about. For the sake of the country I hope it's me.
For the sake of the country I hope it's me.
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:04am.
Why, so she loses in the General to Obama? Good grief : [
Good thing for the rest of us, you dont know what your talking about
Keep dreaming. She ain't
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:23pm.
Keep dreaming. She ain't making it to the general, at least not as a Republican. And we shall see who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. :)
I'll give you the Thatcher
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:14pm.
I'll give you the Thatcher point. I loved her and she was every bit the tough conservative that Reagan was, but we're talking about AMERICAN politics!
I like Gov. Brewer, but not as president
Like I said anyone that thinks Bachmann would actually win is freaking delusional. Thankfully most republicans are more pragmatic and already know this, imo. The nutjobs voting in the Iowa straw poll notwithstanding.
Nothing irritates me more than you Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Ross Perot types who are more than willing to sacrifice this country. You're as bad as liberals.
Don't care for Ron Paul, don't know how realistic---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:29pm.
Bachmann's chances are, and Perot was a flake. A rich flake, but a flake nonetheless.
But the surly, insulting disdain that you evince, AirForceOne 888, towards those not in lockstep with YOUR thinking, tells me your username might be more accurate if it were AirFarceOne666.
Better climb down off that presumptuous soapbox before you fall off and hurt yourself.
MD
Okay that was funny. :D Point
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:54pm.
Okay that was funny. :D Point taken. :)
"I like Gov. Brewer, but not
Submitted by milootoole on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:33pm.
"I like Gov. Brewer, but not as president"
Most probably because she is a woman and in spite of the fact that she has shown the strength of character that you do not believe women possess.
"Nothing irritates me more than you Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Ross Perot types who are more than willing to sacrifice this country. You're as bad as liberals."
I was born in and served this country , most likely , before you were even born and if able I would serve her again.
To paraphrase you:
"Nothing irritates me more than you (mine here -who claim that), Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Ross Perot types who are more than willing to sacrifice this country. You're as bad as liberals." And also those of no tolerance for others opinions. That is a sign of narcissism and that is what is in the White House now.
May I suggest that your concern (reasonable), that a divided conservative vote may give Obama another win is one that many share. I do. It is also the concern that keeps us getting the RINOs and the weak sisters, the "hands across the aisle" boot lickers that are in the GOP right now.
This is the kind of argument/debate that gave us McCain the last time.
I really don't disagree with
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:09am.
I really don't disagree with anything you said, except when you said:
"strength of character that you do not believe women possess."
I never said I don't think women posses strength of character. I inferred they do not possess PHYSICAL strength. The kind that would lend itself to being a police officer. It's a fact that physical standards are lower for women. that right there should tell you something. The reason I question a woman as president is not based on strength, but a projection of strength to the rest of the world. I just don't thin countries like China and Iran would respect a woman. My one caveat to this is Sarah Palin. I think she could project strength to the rest of the world and I would trust her.
Anyway, I appreciate your service and thank you for it. I served as well but it was only for 4 years and it was during peacetime so I spent most of my time in the bars of Myrtle Beach. :)
Bad humor time--
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:39am.
was that Myrtle Beach in the Pacific?? LOL
We do agree on something--there are a few jobs where the physical strength of a male will produce more candidates, but very few. And not to embarrass myself or other men here, I have met women who are stronger than I on many occasions. Some could not lift the weight I could, but they had more stamina. Some could not run as fast as I could, but could run longer. etc. And almost every one of them had more patience than I. A great attribute, I would say.
I worked in a career that had many women in it Information Technology and I met many many women of good intelligence.
I also am old enough to remember that almost any woman in the work place was single and were not in positions of authority. My, how the world has changed.
You made a good post here and
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:51am.
You made a good post here and gave me a few things to think about. :)
Good Point
Submitted by pcnav on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:27am.
My mom was raised on a farm and had to milk cows by hand. Because of this she had a grip that could crush most average men's hands should they choose to challenge her in that kind of contest.
pcnav
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 11:02am.
LOL I am glad I was not a teat on any cow there. LOL
My mom was under 5 feet tall. I remember as a teenager she asked me to move the refrigerator so she could clean behind it..I was unable to do it, so she moved me aside and did it herself.
My wife weighs under 100 pounds. She can outlast me on ANY yard or house project.
I suspect, it's not just strength. She is smarter than I am, too.
History deficiency
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:39am.
I just don't thin countries like China and Iran would respect a woman. Is it going to kill you to read your history?
Spain respected Queen Elizabeth I. Grudgingly and by force, but Spain respected Queen Elizabeth I.
Just 30 years ago, Galtieri and his merry band of thugs were forced to respect PM Thatcher atter she made it plain Britain was not to be messed with in the wake of Operation Corporate.
Not only do I think countries like China and Iran respect a woman, but in the case of Iran, having them deal with a female head of state would be something of a living, breathing, 24/7 "F*** You" to them.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh, please.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:52am.
Oh, please.
Unelectable?
Submitted by mdgiles on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 11:01am.
"I hope the liberal media rips her apart and keeps as many of my fellow republicans as possible from voting for her."
And you don't consider it odd that the Liberal media has it's fangs out for her, while pushing Romney - who is as close as you can get to Obilge and still be a Republican. Think the media might be scared to death of a candidate who is a visibly different choice than Obozo? Think the might be interested in blurring the picture?
I would say they have their
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:30pm.
I would say they have their fangs out for her because she is unqualified to be president. I'll ask again: what has she ever done to deserve to be considered for president?
I DO believe the Newsweek cover was a hit job. I also know the media will soon turn their attention to trying to destroy whoever is the Republican nominee. But for now, I'm glad they are attacking her rather than our more viable candidates.
I would consider their attacks on her more of an evil cabal if she had a chance at winning the election, but she doesn't. Heck, if there is an evil plot, they are attacking her to try and get conservatives such as yourself angry and to support her since they know she would lose the general.
She meets the Constitutional
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:39pm.
She meets the Constitutional requirements. Therefore, she is qualified.
Sorry, I'd like a little more
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 1:00pm.
Sorry, I'd like a little more in my next president than "she/he meets the constitutional requirements"....
We as Americans can do better than that. I for one would like to see this country turn around. She is in no way qualified to tackle the issues this country is facing. She's a good team member and I appreciate her work as a congresswoman, but no further than that.
You are the one who stated
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:36pm.
You are the one who stated she is unqualified to be president. Perhaps there was a different word you were looking for.
Straw poll is unscientific
Submitted by nkviking75 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:35pm.
For the record, the straw poll is part of a GOP fundraiser. The poll is completely unscientific. It has become a competition among the candidates to see how many supporters they can bring in.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
but that's the point
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:57pm.
It's a fundraiser and this woman who has no chance at winning anything is taking money from candidates that do have a chance.
My real worry is that she tries to run as a third party candidate when she loses the nomination.
Your loosing it
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:14pm.
Now your talking gibberish. Third party, really?
it's LOSING it
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:15pm.
and I mean run as an independent, etc..
Good grief,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:28pm.
If she or anyone Primaries as a Repub, then switches to an Indy for the General, they will not make it on the Ballet in many States. Besides, Bachmann is a Patriot, she will not only support the winner, she will do everything in her power to make sure Obama is defeated. In spit of your ridiculous prediction.
I hope you're right man.
Submitted by AirForceOne888 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:44pm.
I hope you're right man.
Here's a radical thought.
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 3:43pm.
Here's a radical thought. How's about supporting any conservative candidate in public... and defending him or her against the actual enemy.
That would be radical leftists, by the way.
Then voting in the primary for your choice.
Then supporting whoever the winner is against Obama, who may even be your choice.
I'm sure whoever it is will get plenty of donations, no matter how much any losing candidate receives.
Isn't all your second guessing giving you a headache? It's giving us conservatives one.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Iowa caucus was Obama
Submitted by Injest on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:58pm.
Ahhhhhhhhhh I think the last person to win the Iowa caucus was Obama.
Dems don't have straw polls, they have a “caucus”.
Somehow I accidentally caught some of this drivel live
Submitted by YahooWatcher on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:54am.
yesterday morning. Another comment made was Gwen calling Rick Perry Jim Carrey. Someone said "Jim Carrey si the comedian" and Gwen responded, "Well, they are all interchangable."
Don't Tax Me, Bro.
Ifill Smear
Submitted by pcnav on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:19am.
Gwen Ifill mentioning that GW was the last person to win the straw poll was meant to link Bachman to the policies of GW Bush plain and simple. It was a suttle smear attack, the kind that are the most dispicable.
Oh really?
Submitted by mdgiles on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 11:07am.
"Gwen Ifill mentioning that GW was the last person to win the straw poll was meant to link Bachman to the policies of GW Bush plain and simple. It was a subtle smear attack, the kind that are the most despicable."
Link to Bush, hmmmmm.
Okay, show of hands, how many would prefer Bush back as opposed to the incompetent, lying sack of fecal matter we currently have?
Linking to Bush is only bad, if you're still suffering from BDS. Us regular folks recognize that things were better back then.