Tom Friedman: 'I’d Give Obama High Marks for Fulfilling Bush's Foreign Policy'
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman this weekend said he'd give President Obama high marks for fulfilling Bush's foreign policy.
This surprising observation on PBS's McLaughlin Group came somewhat coincident with Chris Matthews saying George W. Bush was actually better at conveying his message than the current White House resident (video follows with transcript and commentary):
THOMAS FRIEDMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: I’d give Obama high marks for fulfilling Bush's foreign policy. I think he's been very good at executing Bush's foreign policy, particularly the war on terrorism. Been very focused. He's I think brought power to bear in a very smart way. He's gotten the people he needed getting. In terms of his own foreign policy, I’d agree with Mort. I think it's TK. I think the issues that he's taking on himself whether it was Arab-Israel diplomacy, or building a different relationship with China, still to be determined. I think the key thing here is leverage.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: You don't think the fact that he is carrying forward the Bush-Cheney policy that that diminishes what Obama is doing?
FRIEDMAN: Oh, no.
MCLAUGHLIN: Doesn’t that really say something about the stature of Obama?
FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I think he…
MCLAUGHLIN: He's willing to see credibility and truth where it is.
FRIEDMAN: And deal with it in an effective way.
So we learned from two Obama lovers this weekend that the supposedly most intelligent man ever in the White House is less effective at conveying his message than the president they both thought was an idiot, and the intellectually superior chief executive is just executing his addle-minded predecessor's foreign policy.
If only Bush would have gotten this kind of respect when he was in office.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Except Bush didn't butt heads
Submitted by rbosque on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:11pm.
Except Bush didn't butt heads with Israel and help our enemies with cash and weapons via NATO to the Sharia-compliant terrorist groups that are in the process of establishing theocracies all over the Middle East.
I'm shocked
Submitted by drydino on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:22pm.
I just felt the floor and it isn't even cool yet!!
I didn't realize Bush's foreign policy was to make the way clear
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:34pm.
...for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in the region while simultaneously screwing Israel.
Perhaps I missed something.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
President Bush did not get the people that need gotting.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:46pm.
Friedman: He's gotten the people he needed getting.
See. You have to get the gotten people that are in line for getting. Or take an English class. Whatever. How much do we get paid to be on these shows? Cuz that is highbrow talk right there. Getting people that need gotting.
I Do Believe...
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:55am.
Friedman just got Vetted.
(Vetted = pwned)
It's the inverse of 'Blame Bush'
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:49pm.
Just like how they blame Bush for all of Obumble's failures, they give Obama all the credit for what Bush got right.
They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
I disagree, Phryj1...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:11pm.
If that were the case, Friedman would make no reference to Bush at all [unless a negative one]. He would simply praise Obama for his foreign policy and his skill in executing it. Couching his positive assessment as he did, Friedman was explicitly acknowledging it was Bush's foreign policy and implicitly endorsing same.
That assumes of course there was nothing else said by Friedman about Bush to amend or qualify what is quoted by Noel.
Jer
So, as I understand Friedman . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:41pm.
. . . Obama's political strength is the adoption of The Bush-43 foreign policy that he campaigned against in 2008, which apparently is superior than the one he promised to execute in his campaign promises.
How ironic for an Administration that blames Bush for everything from the economy to the common cold.
"I’d give Obama high marks".
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:09pm.
Friedman should have stopped right there, I know he wanted to.
Choice: mild dishonesty -vs- extreme dishonesty
Submitted by pockets64 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:11pm.
Too many people know whose policy it is to take the extreme dishonesty policy you mention.
As such, they have to go with the mild dishonesty path and credit Obama with Bush's successes.
He did acknowledge it, Jer...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:15am.
but it seemed to me he was trying to mark it as a win for Obama while diminishing any credit to Bush. I sincerely doubt Friedman can bring himself to actually admit Bush got something right.
Heck, even I'm not so partisan as to blind myself to when a Democrat gets something right. For instance, using Bush's anti-terror apparatus and even expanding it and taking out more terrorists is something Obama's done that I fully agree with. More dead terrorists is always, always, always a good thing in my book.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Phryj1...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:51am.
Friedman is left of center but not a hard-core ideologue by any means. In fact, many progressives have in the past branded him a conservative--which is just as silly as labeling Scarborough a liberal. Friedman was conditionally but generally supportive of Bush's Iraqi policy in its initial stages, although he did become more of a critic as things became bogged down before modifications in strategy began finally producing positive results.
Granted there are some on the left who are simply incapable of giving credit to Bush under any circumstances. Friedman is not in that mold.
Jer
Friedman isn't a wacky as Krugman or West
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:50am.
The irony about Friedman is that the MSM has elevated his status as an intellectual because he's written books on contemporary topics. It's not that he's a deep thinker, but he thinks more than most of the MSMer, and thus he's celebrated among them as a genius.
Someone should explain to Mr. Friedman
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:53pm.
that there is a whole lot more to Foreign Policy then just the war on terrorism which up until the recent capitulation in Iraq and Afganistan, I would give Obama good marks for. The rest of Obama's Foreign Policy sucks.
The Thrill-O-Meter reads zero
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:02pm.
If Matthews is disappointed in Obama, it isn't because Obama struggles with conveying his message. It's because Obama is struggling with conveying Matthews' message. Matthews has been waiting for Obama to sound like JFK, which ain't gonna happen.
It's been interesting to follow Obama's foreign goofs and entanglements and watch people like Friedman try to string them together into a coherent policy. In essence, whatever comes out in the end it regarded as what Obama intended from the beginning.
I challenge Friedman and his pals to ask Obama to describe US foreign policy. Without a teleprompter, I doubt Obama can.
I doubt if Boy Barry could
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:37pm.
I doubt if Boy Barry could explain just about anything without his teleprompter, because he isn't very successful at doing it WITH his damn teleprompter!!! This clown is usually all over the ballpark, but rarely in the playing field................
Right...
Submitted by Lakewood Ed on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:30pm.
Ya, Tom. Like your marks mean anything. :Þ
The only marks Friedman ever has for Obama are high ...
Submitted by ombdz on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:35pm.
... even when he votes "present" - which Obama seems to have found a novel way of doing this week ... http://bit.ly/qVdDUt
Never heard.....
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:26pm.
........obama complain much about that inheritance.
right is wrong, and wrong is right
Submitted by right of way on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:57pm.
so bush's policy while he was in office were failed policy. but, the same policy under obama is genius policy now. wow! more and more lies from the left.
The left has left any form of
Submitted by jkwtrading on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:09am.
The left has left any form of logic at the door.
I'm reading over here - out
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:50am.
I'm reading over here - out of Honolulu - at the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference - that Boy Barry once again stated (to paraphrase) that it is important for the Asia-Pacific Conference to work, so that 'folks' can have more jobs back home in the USA. Now..........he didn't call any government or union employess 'folks', as far as I can tell..........just the rest of us little nothings out here in the hinterlands. And how many of these 'workshops', 'meetings', and 'conferences' has this economic freshman had since he took over as 'President'???
I also read that he - once again - reiterated his statement that the USA has been 'lazy' lately, and this is one of the main reasons why we are in the mess that we're in.
This poser called us 'lazy'...........AGAIN!!! And I'm sure that whoever was sitting there listening to him flap his big, stupid, purple gums..............didn't say a godd**m thing about it!!!
FUBO IS FUBAR!!!!
BS = BO!!!!
PS.............I wonder if this steaming pile of Kenyan Kow Krap went to visit his 'typical white grandma's' grave??? You know, the lady who raised him............the lady who paid for his youth and schooling.............the lady who was under lock and key for the whole presidential campaign...........and somehow, mysteriously, DIED right before he was coronated?????
Yeah,. go ahead..................CALL ME a 'conspiracy theory nutjob'!!!
Tom hasn't moved to China already? Shocking
Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:50am.
He would make a good propaganda minister for the Politburo.
Irony
Submitted by Karl Magnus on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:19am.
How much longer can these radical Leftists simply morph into Bush supporters and pretend that they aren't? Friedman of all people exemplifies the hypocrisy, forget the irony.
"Obama Lied, Americans Died" - how's THAT for a bumper sticker?
The fact is: GW Bush was right about a LOT of issues. The clueless ChicagØbama continues to ride his coattails - only when he perceives it to be to his political advantage of course. Ø'Bumbler couldn't care less about real people outside of ChiTown and the D.C. "bubble". He IS after all: Teh One. /sarc
~(Ä)~
Oh please...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:15pm.
Friedman is only a radical Leftist to either those so far out on the fringe right that anyone who is a millimeter to the left of, say, a Newt Gingrich is considered a Marxist or to those who misjudge his politics. I doubt you are a fringe rightist, but I do think you are laboring under a skewed perception of Friedman's ideology.
Jer
But of course, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:18pm.
only you have the proper perspective to make the call on what is, or is not, Friedman's ideology.
Amazing that no conservative could possibly make the type of valid value judgments that seem to roll nonstop off your Democratic liberal keyboard.
Make no mistake, the foregoing was most definitely sarcasm.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:05pm.
I know enough about Friedman to know that claiming he's a "radical Leftist" is absolutely laughable. And I'll send a check for a hundred dollars to you or to your favorite charity if you can find a single NB editor or contributor listed on the masthead who will go on the record honestly endorsing that label.
Jer
I know enough about you, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:29pm.
to state that you commit incessant knee jerk comebacks to defend your tribe; all based on your opinion.
My favorite charity is me, and I don't need your money - thanks all the same..
You aren't implying that any masthead listed name might consider offering a dishonest endorsement, are you? :o)
MD
Yeah right, that Friedman is
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:04pm.
Yeah right, that Friedman is just "slightly" left of center.
Figures you would defend this libturd.
Tom Friedman Goes on PBS to Once Again Explore His Extreme Envy of Red China
Tom Friedman: All the Interest in Sarah Palin 'A Sign of the Apocalypse'
Privileged NYT Columnist Tom Friedman Calls for People to Work Less, Own Less in Name of Planet
CNBC's Santelli Schools NYT's Friedman in Ponzi Schemes and Social Security
Tom Friedman: The World Would Be a Better Place If Bush Had Raised Taxes on 9/12
Tom Friedman: Tea Party is Wrong - Americans Want Higher Taxes and More Spending
NYT's Friedman Goes Sarcastic on Rush's Climate Skepticism, Confesses to Obama Vote; Anti-Obama Jews Full of 'Crap'
New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman's (Gas) Taxing Obsession
Delay of Cap & Trade a ‘Disaster’ and ‘Travesty’ Friedman Despairs, ‘Shame on Republicans’
Thomas Friedman on CNN: ClimateGate an 'Idiot Debate,' 'Nonsense'
Tom Friedman Fondles His Power Lust Again on PBS
ABC Touts Tom Friedman to Lobby for Taxes on Oil and Carbon
Friedman: Put 'Government Master' In Charge of Automakers
NYT's Friedman Defends CNN's Nasr and Hezbollah Founder Fadlallah, the Alan Alda of the Middle East
Clueless Tom Friedman Celebrates 'Concentrated State Power' at China's Olympics
NY Times' Tom Friedman to Obama: Time to Go 'Radical' on the Environment!
NYT's Tom Friedman Attacks GM As 'Dangerous' to America, Demands Gas Tax Hike
NYT's Tom Friedman Ecstatic At The Thought of $100-A-Barrel Oil
Scuba...I'll make the same offer to you I just made
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:11pm.
to Matthew. Knock yourself out.
Jer
By the way, hotshot, where did I say "slightly"? You might want to reconsider those quotation marks.
Well, of course a "millimeter" doesn't equate to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:16pm.
"slightly" in any way, shape, or form now, does it, Jer?
Only in the real world.
MD
A misinterpretation of my post, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:27pm.
I didn't say Friedman is a millimeter to the left of center. Nor did I say Friedman is a millimeter to the left of Gingrich.
Maybe if I had said "there are those on the fringe right who believe anyone even a millimeter to the left of Rush Limbaugh is a Marxist, and they are the ones who would consider Friedman a "radical Leftist" my point would have been more clear.
Jer
Didn't say you did, Jer, but had---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:35pm.
your post been "more clear", then the question of misinterpretation would not likely have come up.
Eh?
MD
Scuba did. And you did too by implication.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:51pm.
If you disagree with Scuba, say so. If you agree with Scuba, say so. Otherwise you're just muddying the waters.
Jer
Ain't buying "by implication", Jer;---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:11pm.
besides, as a liberal leaning Democrat on a conservative site, your very reason for being is "muddying the waters".
"It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is."
I rest my case.
MD
as a liberal leaning Democrat
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:30pm.
as a liberal leaning Democrat on a conservative site, your very reason for being is "muddying the waters".
Game.
Set.
Match.
Like.
High five.
Can I get a woot woot?
PWNED.
- shy's grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
The last resort in Loserville...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:33pm.
Just declare victory and go home.
Jer
It's Jers way to weasel away
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:27pm.
It's Jers way to weasel away from any statement he may make.
Tis the lawyer in him.
Scoob---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:39pm.
I was tempted to ask Jer if he was experiencing courtroom flashbacks.
"Objection, your honor. The word "millimeter" in no way approximates "slightly".
"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
MD
If you two can't comprehend plain English...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:47pm.
I can't help you.
Jer
MD
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:00pm.
Jer is sort of the amateur/wet-behind-the-ears assistant lawyer in the courtroom who almost ruins their case, a la the Demi Moore character from A Few Good Men:
Demi: Your honor, I object.
Judge: Objection noted, but overruled.
Demi: I strenuously object!
- shy grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
NY Times' Tom Friedman to
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:25pm.
NY Times' Tom Friedman to Obama: Time to Go 'Radical' on the Environment!
Jer loses again.
You've never won one of our disputes before, Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:45pm.
and you still haven't. Does this sound like a "radical Leftist"?
from wiki:
Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing that the establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East would force other countries in the region to liberalize and modernize. In his February 9, 2003, column for The Wall Street, Friedman also pointed to the lack of compliance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:
Jer
C'mon, Jer, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:51pm.
Scoob 's links sunk your Patrol Torpedo Boat.
Keep on with your denials regarding losing disputes around here and before long you will be posting really outlandish things - like trying to convince conservatives that Joe Scarborough is one of us.
MD
Ho hum...More evidence:
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:09pm.
His books address various aspects of international politics and major shifts in the future world order, from a CENTRIST, LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE on the American political spectrum. Friedman is the recipient of the 2004 Overseas Press Club Award for lifetime achievement and has been named Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II. [my emphasis]
source.
This is just too damn easy.
Jer
You have absorbed too much of the OWS mantra, Jer;---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:14pm.
seeing things how you WANT them to be as opposed to how they really are.
MD
I know, Matthew..,
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:27pm.
I so wanted it to say "centrist, liberal perspective" that I actually thought it did. Now, seeing it through your eyes, it does indeed say "radical Leftist perspective".
My bad. My very, very bad.
Jer
As I have never seen, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:37pm.
an instance of a "centrist, liberal perspective", I believe you are correct even though obviously by accident. :o)
MD
Oy vey, Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:17pm.
Jer, let it go. You're embarrassing yourself.... again. You are glutton around here.
Actions (of the actual Tom Friedman and the plethora of actual pieces he's written and interviews on subjects he's given over the years -- big H/T to Scoob) speak voluminously louder than words (of some resume/profile writer.)
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Right, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:22pm.
Linking squarely on point corroboration of my assertion is incredibly embarrassing to me. I am wallowing in humiliation at this very moment.
Jer
And since when, Jer, does---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:29pm.
"corroboration of my assertion" mean anything other than - 'we agree with one another' - when it comes to verity?
MD
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:37pm.
"I am wallowing in humiliation at this very moment."
Apparently you're not, as you just keep sticking around on this thread long after the burned-black carcass has cooled off, like so many times in the past.
You're a sicko, of sorts, for lack of any more accurate word I can find.
Liberalism is a disease, so...
- shy on the wheels of steel
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
If you recall, Shy, Friedman's support for the Iraqi war was
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:48pm.
a verbatim restatement of the 'Shy doctrine'.
At least give him credit for that and then you are free to leave the thread if my presence here bothers you, head case.
Jer
And as far as Scoobs links, well whaddya know, they're all from the conservative website NewsBusters. And, still, not one of them calls Friedman a "radical Leftist". But I'll make the same offer to you I made to Scuba and Matthew. Shouldn't be that difficult if his radical leftism is so obvious.
And what does Jer recall?
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:56pm.
If you recall, Jer, Friedman's support for the Iraqi war was right in line with the likes of these "centrists":
- Biden (D-DE)
- Clinton (D-NY)
- Daschle (D-SD)
- Edwards (D-NC)
- Feinstein (D-CA)
- Kerry (D-MA)
- Reid (D-NV)
- Schumer (D-NY)
... among others.
Wiki: The Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, enacted October 16, 2002) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.
You scored zero points with that one, really.
You were owned by Scoob. Own up, for cryin' out loud.
- shy vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
But their support wasn' t based on the "Shy Doctrine"
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:58pm.
or have you forgotten the central theme of the Shy Doctrine?
Own up to what? That the Loserville Sluggers are batting .000? Okay.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:42pm.
"But their support wasn' t based on the "Shy Doctrine" "
First off, you know this how? You spoke to each Senator and House rep?
Secondly, how convenient that you gave us that one snippet from Wiki about Tom Terrific's "uber-hawk/neocon stance" (yes, sarcasm) but didn't share with us his souring stance that soon followed...
Since the invasion, Friedman has expressed alarm over the post-invasion conduct of the war by the George W. Bush administration. Nevertheless, until his piece dated August 4, 2006 (see below), his columns remained hopeful to the possibility of a positive conclusion to the Iraq conflict (although his optimism appeared to steadily diminish as the conflict continued). Friedman chided George W. Bush and Tony Blair for "hyping" the evidence, and stated plainly that converting Iraq to democracy "would be a huge undertaking, though, and maybe impossible, given Iraq's fractious history". ....
In his August 4, 2006, column for The New York Times, Friedman stated that the effort to transform Iraq by military invasion had failed, and that it was time for the United States to admit failure and disengage: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, democracy is not emerging in Iraq, and we can't throw more good lives after good lives.[32]
Us real "Iraq/Bush doctrine" people who saw regime change and planted democracy, freedom and rights in the heart of the M.E. as the reason behind the war in a post-9/11 world, understood and appreciated during the long slog of Iraq that --
A) We still lost a record low number of soldiers for such a major engagement that included a full-scale invasion, the removal of a tyrant and his network, and the reconstruction of a new government -- all while withstanding the unexpected wrath of tons of foreign terrorist elements flooding in over porous borders. 4,000 losses in the end, when compared to other past major conflicts stretching over many years, is a low number. And...
B) Add to this, we were dealing with the heart of the Middle East, which is brutal.
Tom was right going in, but in time he turned on Bush as the war turned into an actual war that was lasting several years and costing lives (as almost ALL wars do), and he was shown to not have the stomach for any war that's not a cake walk -- like a typical liberal.
Tom tucked tail completely by 2006, just before we righted things and started to win the overall battle.
Not an Epic Fail, Jer, in trying to find a tiny morsel that proves he's more centrist-y than a real leftist. But a Pretty Good Fail.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:51pm.
The following comment at Sister Toldjah sums it up best:
Leslie
October 1, 2007 at 10:52 am
The left thinks Tom Friedman’s a righty; the right he’s a lefty. He must be doing something right.
Mr. Shy has a point Uncle Jer.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:04pm.
The rally cry of many on the left is that President Bush FOOLED them into supporting the Iraq War with his lies and lies and lies. So someone supporting the Iraq War in the early days does not indicate their rightiness or centralinessness in any way whatsoever.
Teh Vet
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:27pm.
"So someone supporting the Iraq War in the early days does not indicate their rightiness or centralinessness in any way whatsoever."
..."shape or form", let's also add.
No, no real substantive reason for this post. But I do have the glow of The Vet's endorsement, which is pretty cool.
- shy's 12" vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
MrShy does not have a point, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:47pm.
The ONLY issue is whether or not Tom Friedman is a "radical Leftist". And that claim is absolute, unadulterated bullshit.
Jer
Plus, you should be deducting points from Shy because he can't even remember his own Iraqi war justification which he regaled us with a couple of years ago.
Friedman tells Odumbo to go
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:51pm.
Friedman tells Odumbo to go "Radical" and you don't consider him a radical.
And the color of the sky in your world is...........chartreuse?
Are you saying Friedman wants Obama to be a
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:10am.
radical Leftist like himself?
Friedman advocates the formation of a "radical" Centrist party--one that is fervently and passionately committed to a centrist--i.e., neither far left nor far right--philosophy.
The radical leftist label is sheer nonsense. Radical leftists are the late William Kunstlers, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, the 60's David Horowitz, the Weathermen, etc. Friedman is nowhere near that crowd.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:36am.
Really? That was Tom urging Obama to be a..... radical centrist?
You're completely out of eggs, and out of cartwheels, too.
"Radical leftists are the late William Kunstlers, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, the 60's David Horowitz, the Weathermen, etc. Friedman is nowhere near that crowd."
Yes, he's quite near that crowd. Is he just like those you mention and in that crowd? Have we now morphed the question into, "Is Tom Friedman just like the Weatherman and Chomsky?" ? You do love to dodge and weave from us by slightly altering the issue and/or question being discussed. Classic liberal technique.
I keep having to remind you that ALL of the left carries pretty much the same torch, which is quite radical. And he's not far off, and pointing us to how he "got it" as far as Bush invading Iraq in a post-9/11 world -- which to this day I can not understand how anyone doesn't get it -- is fluff stuff.... and very old news.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:54am.
Please see Free Stinker's post down the thread wherein he states:
Friedman is (IMHO) neither a "Radical Leftist", a "swishy centrist", nor a "full-fledged neocon" . . .
however . . .
he comes closest to "Radical Leftist" than the other descriptions.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/tom-friedman-i-d-g...
Now, I may differ with him just a tad, but at least he understands the issue.
Jer
So, Jer, Friedman "comes closest" to the description---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:55pm.
'Radical Leftist; but anyone who says Friedman is a radical leftist is way off course?
I will admit that the logic of that escapes me completely - but seeing as how I am not a liberal I doubt it will create a personal sleep deficit.
MD
Oh dear sweet trolljegerens shining in heaven above.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:22am.
That is a big bucket of poo you stepped in there.
I read the Wall Street Journal. The claim could be Friedman is not a "devil worshipping choco lover" for all I care. The guy ain't on my radar.
Good luck with that whole disproving the absolute unadulterated bullshit thing. The phrase "see ya, wouldn't want to be ya" comes to mind.
Plus the whole Mr. Shy having the heavenly sweet silky voice that sends me into sweet paroxysms of joy evening out you being close blood on the scale of life - yeah, see ya, wouldn't want to be ya. Good luck with that bucket of poo.
Jer Wins
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:06pm.
We/Scoob give you some 15-20 rock-solid examples of real leftist liberalism, and you give us one very lame counter example..... and a quote from Sister Toldjah.
Got it.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
And furthermore, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:56pm.
as far as your additional "gotcha" excerpts from wiki, you're a day late and a dollar short.
Phryj1...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:51pm.
Friedman is left of center but not a hard-core ideologue by any means. In fact, many progressives have in the past branded him a conservative--which is just as silly as labeling Scarborough a liberal. Friedman was conditionally but generally supportive of Bush's Iraqi policy in its initial stages, although he did become more of a critic as things became bogged down before modifications in strategy began finally producing positive results.
Granted there are some on the left who are simply incapable of giving credit to Bush under any circumstances. Friedman is not in that mold.
Jer
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/tom-friedman-i-d-g...
It's time for you to throw in the towel.
Jer
Okay, with no knockout . . .
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:14pm.
Judge Free awards the match to Shy on points.
(but I do admire your tenacity Jer)
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free, you think Shy proved Friedman is a "Radical Leftist"?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:22pm.
That IS the issue, you know.
Check out some of the lefty blogs. They can't stand Friedman's politics. To them, he's either a swishy centrist or a full-fledged neocon.
Jer
The left is wrong, as is Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:31pm.
The left is wrong, because a large swath of them these days are simply off their rocker and visibly radical to the extreme, and we are, overall, correct here about Mr. Mustache Friedman. Tom is very much of the left-leaning mindset right down the line.
If you want to know just how much the fringe of the left is now mainstream, look at OWS and their attempts to, in essence, burn down cities and bring our economy to it's knees.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Jer
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:06am.
Friedman is (IMHO) neither a "Radical Leftist", a "swishy centrist", nor a "full-fledged neocon" . . .
however . . .
he comes closest to "Radical Leftist" than the other descriptions.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Thankyou, Free, for the flicker of light.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:34am.
I appreciate the objective assessment. We're finally getting somewhere with this WAY overdone, flogged-to-death issue.
Jer
Which
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:07am.
Lefty Blogs pray tell?
Like
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:09am.
Huffpo maybe?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/14/huffington-post-so...
Same site that you told me was not a lib site?
Huffpo
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:14am.
read more here Jer. Your words not mine.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/newt-gingrich-accu...
Prisondog...Enough!
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:26am.
Please pound this fact into your thick, lying skull: I NEVER TOLD YOU HUFFPO WAS NOT A LIB SITE. I have given you more than ample opportunity to back up your claim. You won't because you can't. So you choose to lie instead.
Jer
Liar?
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:47am.
Please tell me where i lied?
Prisondog...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:58am.
Those big black letters in my post should give you a huge clue.
Jer
No Jer
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:02am.
F**K you. you called me a Liar.
I was trying to post an addendum to my comment which stated I was not defending any fellow lib on this thread, but if by "fellow lib" you meant HuffPo, then, yes, I was defending that website regarding the mischaracterization of its comment policy.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/newt-gingrich-accu...
Where did i Lie?
Your assertion
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:03am.
wholly was that Huffpo was not a lib site.
Then you're not only a liar, Prisondog...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:10am.
but you're also stupid.'
Jer
Again Jer(k)
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:13am.
tell where i Lied?
I asked you here at time stamp
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:17am.
1:47 and you have not told me what i lied about.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/tom-friedman-i-d-g...
Jer(k)
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:23am.
i have read here far longer than i have been a member and you seemed to be reasonable in your post as the Lib who was 'tuff' enough to stick around here.
However in recent months you have toed the lib line and disagree with any and all that have an opinion other than yours.
Where DID
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:30am.
I LIE?
YOU CALLED me a LIAR
You
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:32am.
have NO credibility.
Jer(k)
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:36am.
i am done with you. Will never respond to you ever again. I am done.
Hallelujah!
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:47am.
Jer
oops,
Submitted by gfrrman on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:10am.
boys and girls, but Jer just called someone stupid.......boy did I get the rumination from the J when I mentioned THAAAT word towards him......oooooooh......Jer the left-guy.......oooooooh........MIRROR SAYS .......JER!!!!
g
Jer's offer is made by someone who tries to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:05pm.
make the argument that Joe Scarborough is a conservative - based on an occasional foray in that direction.
Scuba Dude's links show Friedman to be a radical leftist; only a liberal would disagree and fog the issue by offering monetary recompense as the gold standard for supporting and 'proving' his personal opinion to be THE correct interpretation of any given verbal or written action.
Said opinion being one that is in lockstep with other liberals, of course.
Those with a conservative interpretation of Friedman's various inanities need not waste their time.
MD
Matthew, the lib/progressives think Friedman is a neocon.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:30pm.
Here, for example.
I, on the other hand, have always acknowledged he is left of center. How does that put me in lockstep with the libs?
Just once, try being objective. Pretty please.
Jer
Ok, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:48am.
Since you said pretty please --
I HEREBY OBJECT TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT T. FRIEDMAN IS A CENTRIST LIB.
Howzat?
MD
And here.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:41pm.
at DemocraticUnderground:
Hekate (1000+ posts)Mon May-28-07 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. "What they needed to see was American boys&girls going house to house,from Basra to Baghdad"
Pardon me while I gag. Friedman and his fellow neocons should have to make that journey from Basra to Baghdad themselves. On foot. In the summer.
Hekate
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:49am.
I'm tempted to start out, "What you don't understaned...." but I know you do. That is, this:
The left is loaded up with real loons who are not rooted in any factual reality about anything, politically or culturally. It's not a "fringe" element, but a common and mainstream thread of the left, these days.
In recent years, numerous times I've struck up a conversation with "just your average liberal" friend or blast from the past, and it's not long before they are in lock-step with not just one but EVERY talking point issue, and either siding or having real sympathy for the most radical elements/views of their ideology.
- shy @ 33 1/3 rpm
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
And here.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:38pm.
At Salon, regarding Friedman's advocacy of a centrist third party.
Jer
Yeah a real centrist: Tom
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:48pm.
Yeah a real centrist:
Tom Friedman Calls Pro-Israel Protesters “Stupid”
NYT’s Thomas Friedman: Republicans Represent “A Danger To The Country”
Jer = FAIL
Excellent source, Scoob..
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:56pm.
The certified liars at weaselzippers. The home of commenters who were sorry it was Osama who got shot in the head instead of Obama.
Outstanding.
Jer
Same stories run on NB so I
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:00am.
Same stories run on NB so I guess you consider them certified liars too. Typical, proof is presented and you deflect.
Jer = FAIL again.
Now that isn't quite fair
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:04am.
WeaselZippers completely sources their material. Say what you want about the quality of the commentary, their articles are sourced. Unlike the circular logic, highly-edited clips, and misleading out of context, un-referenced quotes that Media Matters is prone to use.
Wrong, kata...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:18am.
weazelzippers published a bald-faced lie claiming Obama had deliberately avoided commenting on the fatalities in the wake of the killer tornadoes that swept through Ala, Miss, Ga, TN, this past spring in order to speak at a fundraising event instead.
Under a picture of Obama with the blatant lie as a caption, the editors labeled the President a "despicable prick". And of course the comment gallery chimed in with the usual fuck the son of a bitch, fuck the bastard--all based on a weazelzipper lie. Defend them if you wish. They turn my stomach.
Jer
Where?
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:31am.
I can't find it. I looked the last time you mentioned this and I couldn't find it. The nearest I could find was "insensitive prick". And again, it's referenced.
Partisan blogs are very heavily opinionated and some are more coarse in language than others. I won't drag this so far off OT to discuss if I agree with the insensitivity of our President regarding tornado victims. And I will not defend commentary on a blog.
I have seen things on NB that has been left untended that I, myself would have deleted. So I try hard not to judge a blog by it's commentary.
kata...You're right. It was "insensitive prick" and not
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:40am.
despicable prick. I apologize for the error.
But the story as "referenced" and presented was still a lie. When Obama attended the donor event where the "fun day" remark was made, the degree of devastation was completely unknown. In fact, there had not been a single fatality reported to and recorded by the NWS at the time of the event commencement. And yet weaselzippers puts up a screaming headline...
Obama Last Night: Today Was A Fun Day
Southern States Yesterday: 250 Killed People Killed By Tornadoes
<photo>
Insensitive prick
Then the report of how Obama had taken in millions from his rich liberal buddies while the South suffered through the tornadoes.
Followed by comments which are even more vile and disgusting than I had recalled, and were posted by those who were misled to believe Obama--with knowledge of the heavy loss of life and terrible destruction--insensitively and cavalierly announced "it was a fun day". Absolutely outrageous and irresponsible "journalism" on the part of weaselzippers.
Jer
Jer you're missing my point completely
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:44am.
Opinion is not the issue. It's sourced. That is why I said it was not fair that you dismissed it out of hand.
The fact that you had to make one extra click to get to the source material for some inexplicable reason generated a negative response on your part is incomprehsible to me - since you've been prone to linking Media Matters material which is frustratingly NOT nearly so easy to wind the way through to the prime source.
Nothing more, nothing less.
kata...I clicked on the WZ references at the time.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:05am.
I also checked other sources to pin down the time of Obama's remarks. I also checked out the storm timeline provided at the NWS website which is what the irresponsible clowns at WZ should have done. If they had, they would have realized that the first reports on fatalities didn't start trickling in until after Obama's brief address at the event. Of course, I don't know if that would have deterred them from putting up the false and misleading wording of the caption. Obviously their intent is to smear. And they excel in that department.
Now, what do you mean about my being prone to linking Media Matters material? I have occasionally over the years, but those occasions have been extremely rare.
Jer
I am going drag you back to my point
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:06am.
kicking and screaming, it seems. You had the opportunity to cruise past the opinion and go directly to the source of Scoob's article since it was conveniently linked in the first sentence - completely bypassing any opinion you might find offensive. You made the choice, instead, to contend that he made you go through a blog you find appalling and dismissed it out of hand.
I always try to find primary sources to make my points. But that doesn't mean everyone is going to have the patience to do so. Even you.
kata...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:36am.
I try to post primary sources too, kata. If you have in mind the dustup over the Coulter quotes a few weeks ago, I was stunned that someone was questioning the accuracy of the quotes posted at what I believed--and still believe--to be a reputable and reliably conservative website. [And the quotes were indeed 100% accurate.]
Now, I will admit to an immediate visceral, negative reaction whenever I see weaselzippers pop up as a source. That site has zero credibility with me.
And, please, will you expand your comment about me and MediaMatters a bit.
BTW...here's an OT question for you: [paraphrasing] You posted several weeks ago that you are a political independent and therefore can look at things honestly. But a few days ago you posted that you would vote for any candidate the Republicans nominate. That seems a little inconsistent to me. Clarification?
Jer
One more thing: Your previous post was the first time you explicitly referred to Scuba's post and clicking on a source. I thought you had been referring only to WZ.
well Jer
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:48am.
now that I seem to have made myself clear(er?) - I hope you understand my intial point in regards to being fair.
If you have an OT question for me - go ahead and PM me. It's approaching midnight here. I can't imagine what time it is where you are but I have to be up at 5:30am. It's only some photo repair that's kept me up this late.
Pleasant evening. *touches brim of invisible hat*
Well, by all means, get some sleep, dear..
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:59am.
and we'll hash this over another time.
Jer
or hash it out, or whatever. [Oh, am touching bill of cap which is actually on top of my head]
having had my required
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:01pm.
second cup of coffee I realized you successfully sidestepped me again. Sad day. I see my inbox is empty. You wouldn't have been trying to drag me OT on purpose would you? lol
Ok coffee break over. Many more leaves to rake.
Didn't mean to sidestep. I thought you would have gathered
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:29pm.
that once weaselzippers is put up as a source, I immediately reject it regardless of what links may be embedded on the opened page. Heck, Scuba immediately dismissed wiki and it's hardly the inflammatory smear site which aptly describes WZ. Why did you not take him to task also?
Jer
Because wiki will edit and
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:34pm.
Because wiki will edit and censor information, like anything that goes against "Global Warming". Would you cite wikipedia in a thesis?
Keep on spinnin Jer.
No. Would you cite weaselzippers?
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:37pm.
Jer
For a thesis no, but for a
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:40pm.
For a thesis no, but for a linked and verified story yes.
As I said, NB posted the same stories so by your standard NB is lying.
Keep spinnin Jer
And, are you also accusing
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:39pm.
Free Stinker of spinning?
Jer
I never mentioned Free's name
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:42pm.
I never mentioned Free's name in any of my posts until this one.
Keep spinnin Jer
Please stop dodging the question, Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:29pm.
Free Stinker agrees that Friedman is not a radical Leftist. Is he spinning? Uninformed? Not someone whose opinion deserves consideration? Talking out of his posterior? Or what?
Jer
I never mentioned FS until my
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:35pm.
I never mentioned FS until my last post. YOU brought him up.
You just don't like being proven wrong and will spin,spin,deflect and spin.
What centrist has ever proclaimed they wish they could be China for one day? You are still ignoring his statement.
Jer, why do you care so much
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:38pm.
Jer, why do you care so much if Scoob and I disagree? He's still A-Okay whether he and I agree or not. And aren't Liberals always accusing the Right of all thinking the same? Now you seem displeased to see that we don't all agree 100%.
I'm starting to think that Liberals are imposible to please.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I'm sorry, Free...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:59pm.
It was just that I was so overcome with emotion [gratitude, relief, reassurance] when someone on the other side of the aisle--that being YOU--finally injected a dose of objectivity and reasoned judgment into the controversy over an issue which should have generated negligible debate in the first place that I couldn't resist pointing it out to Scuba.
Jer
This is why I don't like wiki
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:13pm.
Your paragraph : Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq [snip]
Was not sourced, so it was someone paraphrasing or summarizing something he'd said. The next three sources on in that section come from 2 Blogspot blogs and CrooksandLiars. ([27][28][29]). Upon further examination they all three refer to the same video. That's just stupid. Finally, we get to a Slate article [30] from the actual author that might support the premise. So why not link it?
If I were marking up my kids high school paper, I would have scratched out this source immediately and scribbled in the Slate article.
ps. OMG I hate it when the posts get this skinny.
This is why I like wiki as a useful site to initiate further
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:45pm.
research: There are multiple links to both original and secondary sources which provide a broad perspective, particularly with regard to prominent persons and historical events.
Footnote 26 takes one directly to Friedman's full remarks re WMD inspections. Footnote 28 requires one additional quick click to the full one-hour video of Freidman's interview by Charlie Rose including his comments on Iraq. There are numerous wiki footnotes which link immediately to primary source articles by Friedman.
Jer
Yes,
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:37pm.
It's supposed to be a spring-board into primary source material for the less than Google savvy. It's horribly hit and miss for content and it can be ransacked at any time by people who see fit to vandalize it. I personally prefer to just use a search engine to start off with, but I am glad it does you some good.
Thanks, kata...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:00pm.
And I am glad you have found weaselzippers to be such an excellent website.
Jer
I'll take that as biting sarcasm.
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:04pm.
Since I've never said anything of the sort.
Well, yes, it was mildly sarcastic to the extent that I had
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:35pm.
taken your previous post as mildly patronizing. And while you didn't explicitly say WZ was "excellent", I believe the following could be reasonably construed as something "of the sort":
WeaselZippers completely sources their material. Say what you want about the quality of the commentary, their articles are sourced. Unlike the circular logic, highly-edited clips, and misleading out of context, un-referenced quotes that Media Matters is prone to use.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/tom-friedman-i-d-g...
Skinny threads: yuck
Jer
good thing I don't take things personally then
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:48pm.
else I'd be hurt.
Same here.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:06pm.
Jer
Friedman would love to be
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:09am.
Friedman would love to be China and he is not a radical?
What if we could just be China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean, where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to environment.
I would post more but it is time to hit the sack. Work tomorrow,
Jer = FAIL
Good night, Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:20am.
I have a dozen more sources bookmarked and ready to post if necessary.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:47am.
If necessary?
When a conservative posts some two dozen sources/examples showing how Tom shills for just about all very-left wing stuff, it would be, um, necessary that you counter with a lot more than one very lame "he sided with Bush's tactical goal in invading Iraq in 2003" and an uber-lame biography of him.
Yeah, it's necessary.
- shy grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:06am.
I posted a variety of sources--conservative, liberal, and neutral. The neutral source even described his politics as "liberal centrist".
That's far more than I've gotten in return.
Jer
And since you apparently overlooked all but two sources, it might be necessary for um...you to have your vision um...checked.
Why waste ammo on a battle
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:33am.
Why waste ammo on a battle you have already lost?
Good question, Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:20pm.
Even Free Stinker concedes Friedman is not a radical Leftist. Better luck next time. Your losing streak remains uninterrupted.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:27pm.
Jer, you're appealing to Free's Authority?
Yea indeed, Friedman is not a Radical Leftist. But he plays one on TV. And he certainly leans left in his spare time.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free...I agree with you.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:35pm.
And I acknowledged that Friedman leans left in my original exchange with Phryj a couple of days ago.
Jer
But Free did say, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:08pm.
that Friedman comes closer to "Radical Leftist" as a descriptor than any other description.
How does that morph into merely being a "lean left: type?
MD
Not exactly, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:17pm.
...not "any" other description.
Free said it came closer than the other descriptions [which I had mentioned: "neocon" and "swishy centrist"]
Jer
That does not alter the fact, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:32pm.
that regarding Friedman and his ideology, you are dancing to a tune that only you can hear.
That's fine, it is your nature as one who also 'leans left'; but in this particular instance you have, IMO, gone from an assuredness of position to a parsing of words that has considerably diluted your argument.
Interesting thread, nonetheless.
I love that word.
MD
So you ignore that Friedman
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:44pm.
So you ignore that Friedman would love to be China for a day. Yeah, all centrists wish they can be an oppresive, communist country.
Keep spinnin Jer
From wikipedia? My goodness
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:27pm.
From wikipedia? My goodness you are degenerating into one of the sto' bought trolls.
You have been thrashed yet again.
Just make out your check to the "Wounded Warrior Project".
You've already been carried out on a stretcher, Scoob...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:52pm.
with a serious case of a kicked ass.
Jer
I have no idea....
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:45pm.
...what this argument is about, who started it, who posted good or bad arguments. I don't have the time to sort through all of it. But Jer, this "I won because I say so" and "I always win, so there!" attitude is ultra lame. I've seen 12 year olds online have more class. Using that kind of tude makes me think you lack confidence in your positions
Scoob
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:56pm.
Oh look, Jer found one thing about Friedman that was a bi-partisan/congress-approved mission by the Bush administration some nine years ago. Look, Scoob, look!!
Every claim Jer has made that he did not lose a battle at NB (the myriad of them, and he's never lost a single one) is akin to every convict in jail claiming "I didn't to it."
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Believe me, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:59pm.
Winning all the time gets old. I actually find myself rooting for you guys.
Train harder. Fire the coach. Recruit some help. Do something! I'm feeling like the '27 Yankees, for crying out loud.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:06pm.
"I'm feeling like the '27 Yankees"
Feeling is one thing. We're all human and prone to delusions of grandeur.
You are like those rare libs who lose bad in debates -- those that remain, that is, who don't bolt, leaving foul language-laden tirades as they exit -- employing light humor to divert from the pounding you just took.
- shy on wax
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Thanks, Shy..
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:12pm.
It makes it fun. And keeps my blood pressure down.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:42pm.
Here's an egg. I know you're out of them.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Sorry, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:44pm.
Scuba just went down in flames again. Don't let him drag you down with him.
Jer
Jer, it is your arse that is on fire,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:53pm.
not Scuba Dudes.
You funny guy.
MD
No Jer, you are the one
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:28pm.
No Jer, you are the one feeling the flames of defeat on your arse.
Have some dignity will ya?
Poster war! Poster war! Poster war!
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:57pm.
Mr. Scuba Dude, oh my trolljegerens above. That is my schtick gathering all the NewsBusters blogs by getting a list of on a certain person in the search functions.
You stole me schtick! I iz homelezz and wanderin' now. Oh it is on mister! It is so so so on!
Oh NOOOOEEEESSS, Izza so
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:07pm.
Oh NOOOOEEEESSS,
Izza so sorry Vet!!
But remember, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :-p
Still no response to Friedman
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:08pm.
Still no response to Friedman wanting this country to be like China for a day. What centrist would ever wish that? Deflect by focusing in on your dislike of a particular website and ignore that the same stories have appeared on NB.
You have failed yet again.