This entry was posted
on Monday, May 19th, 2008 at 7:25 pm and is filed under Election, Iran, terrorists.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This is just wrong on every level.
1. It wasn't vanity that made Obama think that speech was about him. Some White House aides admitted it.
2. The content of Bush's speech was deliberately deceptive, as we've come to expect. "There are some who say we should negotiate with terrorists and extremists" indeed.
2a. "Some say"? Who are "some"? Names, please.
2b. "Negotiate with terrorists and extremists"? That wasn't
Obama. He's made it clear that he won't negotiate with
terrorists, and you know it.
2c. Bush called this "appeasement". Appeasement does not
mean talking with your adversaries as Kennedy, Nixon, and
Reagan did. It means, "to make anxious overtures and often
undue concessions to satisfy the demands of someone with a
greed for power, territory, etc." You can look it up.
3. Bush invoked the Nazis before the Israeli Knesset to smear a domestic political opponent. Entirely out of bounds.
4. The expression on Obama's face. When have you seen him react like this, compared to, say, McCain? McCain called Obama's response a "hysterical diatribe" which meant he obviously hadn't seen it. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sOlaso_7Z8
5. It's not Obama's head Bush is messing with. It's yours.
6. Obama will have Bush singing a different Stones tune:
"Baby, better come back maybe next week
'Cause you see I'm on a losin' streak
I can't get no, uh, no, no, no!
Obama said that he would talk to Ahmadinejad without any preconditions. That would be a disgrace to the office of the President of the USA.
When are you liberals going to realize that you can't talk to people like Ahmadinejad and China and Russia and N Korea.
No more than anyone could talk to Hitler.
"Smitty" says that Obama has stated that he would talk to Ahmadinejad without any preconditions, and that this would be a disgrace to the office of the President. First of all, this is not what Obama has said, which I'm sure you know. Secondly, the Bush admin is doing so right now. In fact, the Busy admin has held talks with the insurgents in Iraq who are killing our soldiers. Finally, If ever there was a disgrace to the office of the President, it is now with George W. Bush sitting in the White House. The whole world knows this, why don't you see it?
May 20th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
This is just wrong on every level.
1. It wasn't vanity that made Obama think that speech was about him. Some White House aides admitted it.
2. The content of Bush's speech was deliberately deceptive, as we've come to expect. "There are some who say we should negotiate with terrorists and extremists" indeed.
2a. "Some say"? Who are "some"? Names, please.
2b. "Negotiate with terrorists and extremists"? That wasn't
Obama. He's made it clear that he won't negotiate with
terrorists, and you know it.
2c. Bush called this "appeasement". Appeasement does not
mean talking with your adversaries as Kennedy, Nixon, and
Reagan did. It means, "to make anxious overtures and often
undue concessions to satisfy the demands of someone with a
greed for power, territory, etc." You can look it up.
3. Bush invoked the Nazis before the Israeli Knesset to smear a domestic political opponent. Entirely out of bounds.
4. The expression on Obama's face. When have you seen him react like this, compared to, say, McCain? McCain called Obama's response a "hysterical diatribe" which meant he obviously hadn't seen it. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sOlaso_7Z8
5. It's not Obama's head Bush is messing with. It's yours.
6. Obama will have Bush singing a different Stones tune:
"Baby, better come back maybe next week
'Cause you see I'm on a losin' streak
I can't get no, uh, no, no, no!
May 21st, 2008 at 6:26 am
Obama said that he would talk to Ahmadinejad without any preconditions. That would be a disgrace to the office of the President of the USA.
When are you liberals going to realize that you can't talk to people like Ahmadinejad and China and Russia and N Korea.
No more than anyone could talk to Hitler.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:45 am
"Smitty" says that Obama has stated that he would talk to Ahmadinejad without any preconditions, and that this would be a disgrace to the office of the President. First of all, this is not what Obama has said, which I'm sure you know. Secondly, the Bush admin is doing so right now. In fact, the Busy admin has held talks with the insurgents in Iraq who are killing our soldiers. Finally, If ever there was a disgrace to the office of the President, it is now with George W. Bush sitting in the White House. The whole world knows this, why don't you see it?
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:36 am
President Bush has the courage to do what is right to secure this country and ignores the popularity polls by you cowards.
And yes Obama did say exactly that so stop lying.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357084,00.html
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 am
Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average: Spread -56.3%
Approve18.7% Disapprove75.0%
May 31st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I think "You're So Vain" was a Carly Simon song, though there were rumors it referred to Mick Jagger if I recall correctly.
Poor Obamites seem to get everything just a little wrong.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
My bad. "You're So Vain" was a duet by Carly Simon and Mick Jagger; "Satisfaction" was Jagger with the Stones.
I was referring to the last 3 special Congressional elections where the Republicans tried to tie the Democratic candidates to Obama, and lost all 3.
That was my least important point.