All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Media Bias Poll
11/29/2012 1:27 PM
I have to imagine that if I mention your dick once, I got your wife beat for at least a year, maybe a decade.
11/29/2012 1:33 PM
Well, you've certainly referenced it more than once in the last 24 hours. 

To each his creepy own, I guess.
11/29/2012 1:42 PM
If it will make you feel better, I'll stop referencing your tiny dick.
11/29/2012 1:42 PM
Best friends again?
11/29/2012 1:47 PM
Friends who ride majestic, translucent steeds, shooting flaming arrows across the bridge of Hemdale. 
11/29/2012 2:19 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/29/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/29/2012 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 11/28/2012 8:18:00 PM (view original):
Funny that Mike wants to compare bad_luck to swamp, yet he goes stride for stride with swampy in defending the Palin-as-victim narrative. MikehawkT223?

Also, I enjoyed how, as if worried that he might be out-dumbassed in this thread, swamp went to the "there is no Bush Doctrine" trump card. Rest assured, swampy. No one can top that whopper.
There is no Bush Doctrine.

Some people over time have used the term, but they are using it as a classier version of "Agenda" or "policy".

Can someone say "Obama Doctrine" and have it mean one thing?

Truman Doctrine, or Monroe Doctrine means a specific thing.

Bush doctrine can mean multiple things. Preemptive strikes, torture for information, Democracy by force.

So she asked him what aspects, and he didnt just say what he wanted her to address. He went after her looking for the gotcha moment, knowing that she isnt "Media savy" and might slip up.

And anyone that disagrees is a Democratic stooge or THE DUMBASS OF ALL DUMBASSES.
Cheney specifically mentioned the Bush Doctrine in a 2003 speech.
As I said some people have used the term as a substitute for policy. It just sounds classy.
11/29/2012 2:23 PM
I'm pretty sure the Bush Doctrine is a specific policy of preemptive defense.

Anyone campaigning for VP in 2008 should know at least that much.
11/29/2012 3:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

And I know someone is going to laugh at using Wikipedia.

It is just a good collection of data and information.

The idea that with so many people using Bush Doctrine to mean so many things, but almost no one in the Administration labeling it as anything specific, it couldnt have a real meaning.

Palin wasnt some Washington insider that goes to Cocktail parties at the trendy Jonx. She doesnt hear casual insider chat. Given that her asking for a refocus of the question was totally resonable. Andif ANYONE else had asked he would have said "Premptive strikes" or whatever.

He smelled the gotcha and went for it!

Is it so hard for the left to give up on something so obvious? Cant you just admit this one?
11/29/2012 4:08 PM
Anyone with a familiarity of the Bush Doctrine would have asked, "are you referring to preemptive strikes?" or something similar when asking for clarification. Asking to refocus the question was a stall. She had no idea. That's a big deal.
11/29/2012 4:14 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/29/2012 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Anyone with a familiarity of the Bush Doctrine would have asked, "are you referring to preemptive strikes?" or something similar when asking for clarification. Asking to refocus the question was a stall. She had no idea. That's a big deal.
You are implying that this was a term that was out there and common.

It wasnt.

It was sometimes used among insiders but never seemed to mean exactly the same thing.

And can you read her mind?

What do you think would have happened if he had asked "What do you think of the concept of preenptive strikes against potential enemies"?

She would have nailed it and been on her way to the White hosue. Someone couldnt allow that.
11/29/2012 4:14 PM



Remind you of anything, badhawkluck22?
11/29/2012 4:59 PM
I'm guessing that 1 inch X 1 inch square is actual size?

I know I referenced your tiny dick, but I've never actually seen it. You're the only one that can answer that question (and your wife, if she has exceptionally good eyesight).

Let's go back to being best friends. Stay golden, ponyboy.  
11/29/2012 5:01 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/29/2012 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/29/2012 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Anyone with a familiarity of the Bush Doctrine would have asked, "are you referring to preemptive strikes?" or something similar when asking for clarification. Asking to refocus the question was a stall. She had no idea. That's a big deal.
You are implying that this was a term that was out there and common.

It wasnt.

It was sometimes used among insiders but never seemed to mean exactly the same thing.

And can you read her mind?

What do you think would have happened if he had asked "What do you think of the concept of preenptive strikes against potential enemies"?

She would have nailed it and been on her way to the White hosue. Someone couldnt allow that.
So that one question kept her from winning? Delusional.
11/29/2012 6:58 PM
Palin was turning the campaign around before the "Bush doctrine" and "i can see Russia from my front porch" turned it around.

They might not have won, but they might have. Palin may have been a weal VP, but Obama was a weak P.
11/29/2012 7:02 PM
Palin was turning around the McCain campaign like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann were turning around the GOP's presidential chances with their performances in the primaries.
of 10
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Media Bias Poll

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.