Parochial fools.
I have never been so disgusted with media as right now. Never so much. I want to break something.
“I’m Keith Olbermann and I paid for this editorial.”
these disgusting media dopes are unreal
Maybe this guy needs to read about the “BUSH DOCTRINE” because even the Washington Post said it was a confusing question.
The TONE of this is hilarious. The NYT-wits really do think they are the landed gentry, above us all, holding standards The Little People just can't comprehend.
I await their similar bashing of Obama for his total lack of experience.
From the pole smokers at the New York Times.
Anyone on FR could have written an editorial more insightful.
But what to expect from an editorial board who are "NOW" hags.
And a “newsroom” full of bathhouse boys.
Befuddlement my arse! It was an obvious restraint not to kick out arrogant Gibson’s teeth!
Since Carlos Slim bought 7% in this rag, will it be printed in a Spanish only edition?
Maybe they oughta be bitch slapping Charlie Gibson instead. The editing was an abomination.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081412/posts
“One of the many bizarre moments”
The only bizarre moment, EVER, comes from any moment when I catch myself reading anything that the “Editorial Board” of the NYSlimes has to say!!!
NY Times editors are puerile leftists kissing Obama’s butt without even mentioning his name. No way that any honest person could dump on Governor Palin like this without instantly rejecting Obambi as a potential PRESIDENT of the USA. Obambi has less of a resume, far less judgment and no integrity. One of the many pluses to the nomination of Governor Palin to be the VP candidate is that every honest, objective comparison makes Obambi more vulnerable to the criticisms that leftists want to throw at Palin.
It’s fun to see MSM hacks doing cartwheels to present their biased partisanship as objective thinking.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
These people are so self-absorbed that they can’t see when they are being played. Why do you think Mrs Palin, sporting a sweet and innocent-looking smile, would bring up the idea that you can see Russia from Alaska. Do these boobs really think that she considers that a credential for foreign policy experience? She was tweaking Charlie’s nose for his oh-so-stern and Princeton-esque visage.
What was McCain thinking by picking Palin? News Flash: It's called getting your liberal America hating butts kicked and keeping you snots out of the White House.
And it's working.
Next stupid question?!
Bizarre.
Shockingly irresponsible.
Lacking.
Denigrating.
Sneering.
Befuddlement.
Confusion.
Ill prepared
Unblinkingly obstinate.
Disastrous.
I can live with that stuff. This part really burns my ass though. What a flat out distorted lie from these pricks:
“Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.”
I don’t understand, if experience is so important then why the NYT didn’t give a comparison between Obama and McCain, after all they are the presidential candidates. It’s just so biased.
This illustrates where we are, Conservatives and Liberals.
Rush Limbaugh is correct when he observes that traditional 60's and 70's style feminists (as well as the sections of the Democratic party that still have two brain cells to rub together) are VERY worried about someone like Sarah Palin, because they recognize the threat she presents to their ideology.
There was an issue recently (I think a few days after her rollout at the RNC, that she was criticized for something she wore.
I thought that particular angle, just the clothes, portrayed and symbolized much more than the cloth they were cut from.
This has been discussed endlessly, but it just begs for the rich treasure trove of opinions because...it is rich in many ways, but most of all, it is rich with steely irony (Which admittedly, is lost on many liberals. Irony is not on their radar.)
Liberals have been tilting at windmills with dishonor via George W. Bush, and before him, Ronald Reagan. But if you have followed politics closely, you can easily see that neither Reagan nor Bush frightened Liberals in the same way Sarah Palin does, because neither of those two presented such a deadly threat to the heart of their ideology.
Sarah Palin goes right for their jugulars of victimhood, bitterness and divisiveness. Their culitvated misandry (hate or contempt of men or boys) which is the feminine yin to the yang of the better known term, misogyny. She is a direct threat to one of the main structural pillars of the democratic party, which is Radical Feminism. I have hope that she is preparing herself to destroy that pillar of liberalism. She is not Superwoman, but she is pretty sharp, and she knows what the stakes are.
As Ann Coulter describes in her book "Treason", liberals will fight with desperation, as they did during the Clinton years when he had to show himself to the nation as a liar. And those liberals fought as they did, because it directly threatened to expose one of the other structural pillars of liberalism, and that is Deception. He was in front of the American Public with his pants down, figuratively speaking. So they fought back, in Ann Coulters phrase, "like cornered animals".
A couple of other rich areas are sexism with respect to the coming battle between the liberals regarding their concealed (they think) sexism, and in the campaign as a whole, racism.
A Freeper recently said: "...If a conservative had said anything at all about the way Hillary was dressed, it would have been called sexist...."
Pfft. Like the stuff I say all the time. I have such a dislike for the politics and attitude of the Clintons that I even see her nearly bitter animosity towards some of the concepts of Conservatism expressed concisely in the things she wears.
I will readily admit that one of the things I think is absolutely CAPITAL about Sarah Palin is her femininity that by all observations goes hand in hand with an agile brain (And that brain seems very well rooted in conservatism.) I wrote something a while back about Hillary, which I recount here:
She will never, ever get MEN to vote for her. I am not talking about Rush Limbaugh's "New Castrati". I am talking about Normal Men.
To many men, her voice is like chalk on a board. It is the sound etched deep into the primordial areas of Man's Brain, and it is the sound of a woman who is very, VERY angry at him.
Her voice is shrill...and resonates a perfect, exquisitely awful dissonance at certain frequencies.
Primordial Man first heard that sound when he dragged his filthy, muddy ass into that clean, dry cave and was lit into by Primordial Woman because he didn't clean the swamp ooze off of his feet, or the Wooly Mammoth guts off of his malodorous fur skin.
That is the voice of Hillary Clinton. She tries to hide it. She tries very hard. But no matter how hard she tries, there are times she opens that mouth and every man with that Primordial Man inside him, hears Her voice.
It is clear she dislikes men. But what REALLY gives her away (and the radical feminists by extension) is the spectacle of the fake affection she has shown towards her husband, simply accepting it as a personal cost to her as she grasps for power. The the contempt she holds him in (and richly deserved in my opinion) is real which makes her willingness to prostitute herself (along with any shreds of principle she may have retained) in order to gain and keep power, a particularly egregious insult.
Quite a difference from Sarah Palin.
The sound of Hillary saying "... "I'm not sitting here as some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette. I'm sitting here because I love him and I respect him, and I honor what he's been through and what we've been through together..." has all the feminine charm of a chainsaw cutting through a large plastic log.
Now.
I just want to paint a contrast here. And folks...this is the part that really made me smile, because it will be such a boon for our country if she can deal a deadly blow to Radical Feminism. If she does, she may cripple the feminist movement in the same way Joseph McCarthy crippled the Communist movement in this country. He made it disreputable.
This is what Sarah Palin may do to free millions of young girls and women from the societal influence of the bitter brand of feminism that has tried to destroy the family and drive a wedge between men and women. I believe that Radical Feminism has been one of the most powerful negatively eroding forces in our country since the middle of the Sixties. A very destructive, divisive and wasteful ideology.
One would read this and wonder how on earth Sarah Palin could destroy the Feminist movement. What would her "weapon" be?
Ironically enough, her Femininity.
She likes men, and it is evident she has real respect and affection for her husband. When one is forced to watch leftist junk on television showing fathers as being contemptible, incompetent, idiotic boobs, you would think American Husbands are the lowest form of life on earth, surpassed only by men in general. (Brent Bozell has written brilliantly and insightfully on this viewpoint.)
THIS is what struck me during her acceptance speech.
Did anyone else hear this during Sarah Palin's acceptance speech, when she talked about her husband:
Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy.
In the same breath she ended speaking, she turned and gestured towards her husband. I thought I heard something in that moment when she stopped talking and turned. Did anyone else hear, nearly below the threshold of hearing...her giggle? A real, giggle. Just three little heh-heh-hehs under the breath, almost as if she tried to keep them bottled up inside of her chest, so everyone there couldn't hear it. As if she involuntarily giggled to herself and almost completely inaudibly, not realizing that a sensitive microphone might pick up that faint sound.
But I was nearly positive I heard it. I did hear it. I went on Youtube, found the video and watched it again. Even though you cannot see her, since the camera was on her husband, you could clearly hear it. It is at This Link: The Speech Part 2. If you listen carefully at exactly 1:37 into it, you will hear it, as soft giggle.
As a man, it was a wonderful thing to hear. It was very feminine, from a woman who sees nothing wrong with femininity, who didn't view her "guy" as a contemptible enemy.
And that, folks, if Mrs. Palin pulls this off, is going to be the thing that girls and young (or not so young) women can look to with genuine admiration and excitement. This is a pathway that they can follow in their lives without being compelled to compromise their principles.
And if this generation of women see that path and take it, it will be a great thing for our country and our society.
After that, conservatives can help blacks (and our nation) in the same way by producing a black man who is more a disciple of Thomas Sowell instead of Saul Alinsky.
And when that happens, blacks will truly be free in their own minds.
Follow the logic to its conclusion, and these Liberal pantloads are ceding victory to McCain by scolding him over the Palin choice!
If he loses, there was certainly no harm in picking her. Every one of these "How could you?!" assfaces is basically admitting that they are sure he'll win.
How sweet it is!!
Every time one of these condescending Obama colonics criticizes McCain's choice, the response shoudl be, "So you know he's going to win too? Thank you for admitting it!"
;-/