My first thought, naturally, was "How many minutes will pass before the Kossacks blame Hillary Clinton?" The Kos kooks did not disappoint:
Interesting Clinton connection thereAnd here come the DUmmies:
Of course, with the incestuous infolds of Penn, Black (and Rove and Mehlman), all information is probably shared between the McBush and Clinton teams at any rate. Bush probably sells it to them.
Also would be interesting to see whether the Somali picture’s release is tied to this somehow.
How about DLC interests?Ah yes. The all-powerful DLC. Everyone knows that the Bush State Department answers to them.
Or maybe Hillaburton?For some reason, the Hill-Haters want to tie this matter to the now-notorious photograph of Obama in traditional costume...
The timing of the picture of Obama in the African dress came out around one of the times of the breaches didn't it?Apparently, Evil Hillary needs the assistance of the passport office to find out when Obama went traveling. Even though that information is available on the internet or at the library.
Well....as a MATTER OF FACT... the photo of Obama came from Clinton campaign . . .Randi Rhodes did no such thing. The only person claiming that Clinton was behind that photo was Matt Drudge, the same guy who peddled the Kerry-and-the-intern yarn. Randi "confirmed" the Drudge account by citing this Politico story -- which simply repeated the Drudge claim. The Randroids insist that Clinton's campaign never denied the Drudge charge, even though the campaign did just that after they (quite properly) took a little time to check.
traced back by Randi Rhodes ---
bless that woman!!!
The Clinton campaign was quick to release a photograph of Hillary wearing traditional costume while on a foreign visit. Needless to say, the Obama photograph would impact only Republican evangelicals, not any Democratic voting block.
When one lone voice of reason on DU noted that "there is no proof that the Clinton camp planted that picture," this answer soon arrived:
There is no proof? That is a strange way of defending them.I see. The burden of proof is no longer on the accuser.
You know what that means, don't you? It means that when the visionary girls of Salem Village point at you and cry: "Goody Proctor is a witch!" -- they are not required to offer evidence. You are.
You know what's really amusing? Some of my critics accuse me of having lost my reasoning abilities.
I'm also amused by the sight of Obamabots accusing "Hillaburton" of peddling smears and trafficking in insults. How can anyone have such an utter lack of self-awareness...?
19 comments:
Joseph wrote: "My first thought, naturally, was 'How many minutes will pass before the Kossacks blame Hillary Clinton?'
The Kos kooks did not disappoint:
Interesting Clinton connection there"
You remind me of the masochist who wants a cold shower in the morning and therefore takes a hot one.
Your reasoning abilities are "superb"
Joseph..it's just that you have misplaced then in your haste to investigate trivia instead of the monumental, (catastrophic), issues we are facing today. At least Bill Richardson is sill functioning wisely and is acutely aware of the level of credibility and intelligence that Obama has displayed and that we Americans have absorbed.
Obama Rocks..You merely roll
Dear Joe,
Since you have lost all credibility as a commentator upon intra-Democratic personalities and issues, will you please abandon that field, and concentrate all of your cannonfire upon non-Democrats, who, after all, are unfortunately still the majority of Americans. If you do institute this change, I will still retain some warm regard for you and will continue to keep you on my regular list of daily interest, but otherwise, I will lose all respect for you, and I'll view you more as part of this nation's problems than as part of the solutions.
what's your objective with all this ? to point out that some people really hate Hillary ? Well, some people really hate you too, so what's the point ?
So you achieved your objective now, we all know that Kos is an anti-Hillary biggot like you're transforming yourself into an anti-Obama biggot. Becomming an "Anti-KOS" will not make you better than them, only a different polarity of the same crap.
Next topic please.
We don't have all the facts yet, but this seems it MAY just be curious people checking these things on there own. But there are reports the head of this office was a Clinton apointee - an ambassador under President Clinton. Certainly Clinton would havce a stronger desire to want dirt on Obama - say a trip to Liba or another Arab country - than Bush. But the recent revalations that McCain and Clinton files were also breached points to either individuals, or, the Bush team prefering Thompson or Romney, more aligned with them on most issues than McCain, and thus looking for dirt on all three.
Instead of going after Obama you guys should be going after the people who injected race into the Obama/Clinton race. Instead you continue to work to split the party.
You should ask who first injected the Obama in Muslim garb photo into the newstream. That was Drudge right? And he said he got it from the Hillary campaign.
Let's see, Geraldine Ferraro made her retarded comment about how Obama got to where he is by affirmative action. So, there again we have elements of the Clinton campaign injecting race into the mix.
Then there was this gem:
"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.
"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.
See, it is the American obsession with race that is screwing up everything. Ideally, it shouldn't matter if Obama was a Muslim. Not all Muslims are Al-Qaeda. But in Amerikkka (whoops I guess I'm a racist now).... it is important to prejudge everyone who isn't WASPy enough rather than on merit.
People should be going after the New York Times, ABC News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity who continue to inject race into every goddamn thing they touch in order to divide America further and keep this racist war in Iraq going. yes it is racist. Killing millions of people over a pack of lies in the third world to steal their oil is racist and should be called as it is. Unfortunately racism is too ingrained in to the American mindset at this point and neither Clinton or Obama will call out this war for what it is... genocide... if they were to do so, the racists at the New York Times, the Pentagon, Fox News, etc. would all go nuts. So they have to keep quiet. And no one will go after the obvious sources causing the divide. We continue to fight each other.
So see, if we get McCain no one is to blame but Americans for continuing to be racists.
"Instead of going after Obama you guys should be going after the people who injected race into the Obama/Clinton race..."
That is precisely why I AM going after Obama. That is precisely what did -- after so many decades -- finally get me so disgusted with my party.
Obama is the one who injected race into this campaign.
You haven't sen my earlier posts, have you?
Oy. I'm starting to get flashbacks to a previous controversy...
I am reminded of the time I went after the CD cranks. (That was another unpopular position where history is proving me right.) They were furious at me. They would write in and say something along these lines: "Tell me, Mr. Smarty-pants, how do you explain away Larry Silverstein's confessions that he 'pulled' Building 7?"
And I would stay up half the night patiently explaining that he had done no such thing. In my explanation, I would reprint the actual quote, as opposed to distorted version that the trannies were passing around...
The next day, I would receive a letter that would say: "Why are you talking about Building 7? That's unimportant. Your should REALLY be talking about the missile that hit the Pentagon..."
And the days after THAT, someone would write in and ask: "Why are you trying to keep people focused on that disinformation about missiles hitting the Pentagon? That's just a distraction. The REAL story is that Larry Silverstein admitted that he pulled Building 7..."
And so it would start all over again!
My point is this: I was sparring with people who not only demanded that I write the equivalent of a book every night (a demand which can definitely impact ones ability to earn money), they also demanded I write the SAME book two nights later.
If I would say "Look, I've already answered that question," they would accuse me of trying to duck their 'devastating' arguments.
Well, I have no choice but to do just that. It was Obama, not Clinton, who made the appeal to race. Clinton had no reason to do so; she had the black vote, the Hispanic vote, and the working class vote. She didn't have the affluent liberal vote or the youth vote.
The idea that one could appeal to such groups by employing racist "code words" is ridiculous.
Why would anyone use racism to steal away those voters who were drawn to Obama? They have already noticed his race, and they had already demonstrated that they didn't care.
As I said before -- you didn't read it -- you have gerrymandered Hillary's quotation. She went on to say that the "Muslim" charge against Obama seemed to her to be a "smear" (her word) similar to the ones she and Bill endured throughout the 1990s.
What is it with you fucking progs and your addiction to lying? Why do you give distorted versions of these quotes? Take, for example the "Fairy tale" comment. I showed the video of the actual statement. The progs never did.
By the way, just that other day I caught myself telling someone "Disneyland is still in Anaheim, as far as I know." It's an old locution which we all have used at one time or another -- a display of faux-naivete to hint that something ought to be indisputable.
"Your reasoning abilities are "superb"
Joseph..it's just that you have misplaced then in your haste to investigate trivia..."
The progressive web sites have degenerated into something resembling the Free Republic.
That is my topic, and it is not a trivial matter.
By the way, I am amused to read that I have "lost credibility."
Re-read the original post. Pay special attention to the "burden of proof" argument at the end. I thought that was a particularly nice bit.
If this has turned into a world in which THOSE guys have credibility, I am glad to be a relic from some older, better world.
I haven't the time to create a new warning poster -- I'll do the job tonight -- but we are going to have some new rules for comments around here.
You will address the points made in the original post. No ducking. No subject switching.
No long reprints of other material.
No propaganda for your candidate -- for ANY candidate, even ones that I favor.
I wasn't aware of this whole race issue until it started coming out of the Hillary campaign. Maybe she didn't endorse it, but her stupid supporters did:
There was the Iowa thing where someone said Obama was a Muslim and circulated that meme before the HRC campaign gave them the axe:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13820.html
There's Matt Drudge's claim that an HRC supporter pushed the Obama in Muslim garb thing.
And then there's the fact that Hillary Clinton ran a fundraiser with propaganda-meister Rupert Murdoch. So the fact that her campaign is picking up those type of people, well...
If you lie with pigs, you get dirty.
JS
JS, YOU are the smear campaigner.
Look at your hypocrisy. You damn Hillary for association with Rupert Murdoch, and yet you rely on Matt Drudge?
(As though the Murdoch press has ever given favorable treatment to the Clintons!)
If you are not going to read what I write, why do you come here? I have already knocked down pretty much every prog lie in the "Hillary the racist" category.
The "Obama in a turban" photo did not come from Clinton. Drudge may have said so, but he is also the guy who spread the "Kerry and the intern" tale which prompted me to start this very blog. He has every motive to spread a hoax -- and this is hardly the only such hoax perpetrated by the right in recent times. Remember the right-wing newspaper in Canada which -- citing a single UNNAMED source -- tried to shift the blame for the NAFTA scandal from Obama to Clinton?
I have already said that the Clinton campaign checked and denied being responsible for the "turban photo" story. They were very quick to provide photographs of Hillary wearing traditional garb for while visiting a foreign culture.
I have already written about this. How many times must I repeat myself?
How many times must you repeat the lie?
As for your other citation -- big deal. You have one dumb Clinton supporter in a county in Iowa who got suckered into nonsense, as did millions of others. She was FIRED IMMEDIATELY.
Compare that incident to the infinite number of smears spread by Kos, which Obama could stop with a single sentence. The fact that Obama refuses to utter that sentence means that he approves of the smear tactics.
Notice how you fucking progs never bring up the "dark" video clip anymore? That's because every person with relevant technical knowledge agreed with what I said: That the ENTIRE video went dark in its online incarnation, that lossy video codecs often darken the image, and the the PAR issue "expanded" the image -- in the entire ad, not in that one shot.
Did Kos or his writer "Troutnut" ever apologize? No. Why no apology? Because Obama supporters have no interest in truth, and because they lack basic courage.
I have been told that Troutnut has since admitted privately that he got it wrong. (I would like to see confirmation for what I've heard.) But was "Troutnut" fired?
No.
Did anyone on Obama's team get fired for that "Senator from Punjab" remark?
Jesse Jackson Jr. is still working for the Obama campaign. How the hell can you justify this sort of unapologetic racist strong-arm tactics?
"Jackson, once again playing the role of the Obama campaign's "race man" enforcer, posed a leading question: "Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?" Black congressmen were threatened to fall or line or face primary challenges. "So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position," Jackson said."
Now THAT is racism, my friends. I've never heard a single Obamabot try to mount a rationalization. Instead, they switch the subject.
And you blame CLINTON?
You are just plain fucking nuts!
I've taken on every single point ever made by you prog assholes pushing the "Hillary the racist" meme. And I've knocked 'em all down.
My view may not be popular now. Time will prove me right.
JS, do not attempt to comment here again unless you first
1. Check to see if I have already addressed your points.
2. Engage what I've actually said, instead of switching the topic.
Saying "there is no proof" IS a strange way to defend somebody, I think. It's part of Bart Simpson's overtly guilty catechism, after all.
Unless what was meant was, 'there is no (credible) **evidence**,' which is probably what was meant, judging the comment charitably. (An unsourced Drudge report is the opposite of credible evidence, and counts for approximately zero as evidence. Actually, make that ANY Drudge report, sourced or not!)
For, in very few situations can there be proof, unless a trial or other legal proceeding creates evidence on the record sufficient to establish proof (or the deed was done in broad daylight on television). Yet we routinely use credible evidence to assert that a purported fact is true (or untrue), even when that evidence falls somewhat short of 'proof.' Just as a jury may find a circumstantial case (lacking exact proof) to be sufficient to 'prove' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (especially if no alternative explanation for the circumstances all being that way can be found credible). Ala Scott Peterson's conviction of killing his wife, Lacey.
To be clear, my view is that the anti-Hillary hysteria has become a virtual full blown psychosis, rendering those suffering from it detached from reality, and unable to use their critical faculties. I have already agreed with that take here on this blog.
Alarmingly, these types are also Democrats, and among the voting block needed to replace GOP governance in this country.
God help us all.
...sofla
No one thinks Obama is the Messiah. That he's perfect. That he will end starvation. Singlehandedly prevent all future wars. End racism. Make Hope the new in thing.
NO ONE REALLY BELIEVES ANY OF THAT.
You just keep smearing everyone as if everyone has a precise uniform reason for why they like Obama over Clinton. You do that in every subject you approach. 9/11, progressives, whatever... in your mind they're all ONE BIG UNIFORM MOB THAT THINKS EXACTLY ALIKE.
People are "mobbing" your site because you are not fair. You're biased. No one supports Obama because he has no sins or is perfect... they support him because from what he says compared to what Clinton says he comes off as more honest and more in line with what they want to see in this country.
But you keep writing page after page of things about Obama's imperfections and attacks on Hillary as if she hasn't done the same thing.
You are being dishonest in only calling Obama on stuff that Hillary does too. Like I have posted before. Hillary aligned herself for some odd reason with Rupert Murdoch. THAT ALONE was enough to turn me off from her and look for another candidate. She didn't do it because she has his politics... I know that.
But she has a HISTORY of that type of thing. That is why she is known as the candidate that will DO ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED. That's why no one wants to vote for her. Because no one knows what the flying fuck they'll get when she actually take power.
THAT is why she is in this position. Not because she is a woman or white or because Obama is being unfair in his attacks. You can blame Obama and the nasty progs all you want... but if she can't woman up to why she is in second place position(her own actions).. and she can't bear the heat, then SHE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE FUCKING FIRE.
JS
Don't worry. I don't intend to reply hear again. Taking a break from this bullshit.
"Hillary aligned herself for some odd reason with Rupert Murdoch."
No she didn't. Stop lying.
However, it looks like a sizable contingent on FOX now supports Obama -- including the vile Chris Wallace:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/mayhem-at-fox-news-ancho_n_92743.html
I can't think of another Democrat to get that sort of endorsement. Also look at my top post at the moment.
"People are "mobbing" your site because you are not fair. You're biased."
Why would anyone read an opinion column if not for the bias?
You cannot argue that I came to my conclusions about about Obama rapidly, without due deliberation. Was I not pushing the "Anyone But Hillary" line until fairly recently?
"But she has a HISTORY of that type of thing. That is why she is known as the candidate that will DO ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED."
Smear, smear, smear. She has no such history. Stop lying.
In 2000, Gore was known as the candidate who would tell any lie to get elected. Everyone "knew" that. A lot of people on the left -- were you one of them? -- fell for the smear campaign, at least in part.
You may think you think for yourself, but you are actually falling prey to mob mentality.
I have countered every single argument you've made. I have ducked nothing. You simply do not want to admit that you have fallen for a pack of smears.
Oh, Joseph. You're guilty of the very same crimes you decry in others, particularly repeating falsehoods - even after they've been demonstrated false - purely for their propaganda value. To wit:
"He has every motive to spread a hoax -- and this is hardly the only such hoax perpetrated by the right in recent times. Remember the right-wing newspaper in Canada which -- citing a single UNNAMED source -- tried to shift the blame for the NAFTA scandal from Obama to Clinton?"
You can get away with this "right-wing newspaper" business because neither you nor your audience actually reads it. I do. And I once wrote for the Globe & Mail, the rag in question. Yes, in my granddad's day, it was a pretty stodgy periodical. Not so today, friend. I've already written this, here, before, yet you are content to ignore it, and repeat the opposite mantra. Because it's true? No.
Because I have written for the G&M, I know what its style book requires of its reporters, which includes - gee, what a surprise - second party confirmation for any claims made. I've already written this, here, before, yet you are content to ignore it, and repeat the opposite mantra. Because it's true? No.
Ian Brodie made comments to multiple reporters for the CTV network, which is owned by the same company as the G&M. The initial reportage by CTV's Tom Clark said that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns had reassured the Canadian government that their respective NAFTA raps were to be taken with a grain of salt, and CTV's subsequent coverage removed all reference to the Clinton allegation.
Now, if the G&M is "right-wing," wouldn't CTV be the same? If so, why did it first blame both Clinton and Obama, and then remove all Clinton references? Because it prefers a Democratic candidate? Please.
Whereas...
Ian Brodie said precisely what he was quoted as saying. As I pointed out before, he may have misspoken, or been misinformed. Or been lying, since I've pointed out to you repeatedly that both he and the Prime Minister he serves are serial liars.
Rather than contemplate what Canada's legitimately "right-wing" government may have to gain from this, you simply shoot the messenger by claiming the G&M is "right-wing." It would be amusing, were it not so sadly, pathetically wrong-headed. I've already written this, here, before, yet you are content to ignore it, and repeat the opposite mantra. Because it's true? No.
For an example of what the Globe wrote at the time:
Envoy faces calls to resign in NAFTA leak probe
Wilson's concession shifts focus away from PM's top aide
CAMPBELL CLARK
March 12, 2008
OTTAWA -- Michael Wilson should step down as Canada's ambassador to Washington while the leaks that damaged Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign are investigated, opposition parties said yesterday, as scrutiny moved from one of Stephen Harper's top aides to one of his high-profile political appointees.
Mr. Wilson has now publicly acknowledged that he spoke to the CTV reporter who first reported the leaks before the story aired, but refused to discuss what was said.
The Liberals say it now appears that Mr. Wilson, who was finance minister under former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, took part in political leaks that damaged a Democratic presidential contender - and he cannot continue as Canada's chief representative in the United States until his role has been investigated.
Mr. Obama came under fire when it was reported that a senior campaign adviser told Canadian diplomats that the Illinois senator's call to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement was more politics than policy. The adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said his comments were misrepresented by a Canadian diplomat.
A series of leaks of Mr. Goolsbee's remarks, made in a private meeting to Canada's consul-general in Chicago, Georges Rioux, hurt Mr. Obama in last week's Ohio primary. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, returned to the so-called NAFTA-gate incident yesterday as she bashed Mr. Obama for policies that are "just words."
The Canadian leaks began as a remark that Mr. Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, made to CTV reporters during the Feb. 26 budget lock-up.
Mr. Brodie told the reporters that Ms. Clinton's campaign contacted Canadian diplomats to say her calls for renegotiating NAFTA were not serious. When CTV's Washington reporter, Tom Clark, went to air with a story the next day, he reported it was Mr. Obama's campaign that had contacted diplomats.
Mr. Wilson has now publicly acknowledged that he spoke to Mr. Clark before the report aired, although he said what they discussed is private.
"We have three leaks with a desired result to interfere and influence the Democratic primary," Liberal MP Navdeep Bains said in the Commons yesterday. "Will the Prime Minister confirm that Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson are under investigation and that they have stepped aside? If not, why not?"
Mr. Bains said later that Mr. Wilson should "resign" at least until the leaks have been investigated. But he charged that the government is just stonewalling in the hope the controversy will blow over.
"He should step aside until the investigation is complete. Unfortunately this government is not responding," Mr. Bains said.
Mr. Harper has said that the Privy Council Office, the central government department that reports to the Prime Minister, will carry out an internal investigation of the leaks.
But PCO spokesman Mark Giles would not say yesterday whether Mr. Wilson has been interviewed as part of that probe.
The internal inquiry is being headed by Marc Tardif, the director of security operations at the Privy Council. But the NDP has argued that Mr. Tardif is several levels below Mr. Brodie, who is Mr. Harper's top political aide. And Mr. Wilson is perhaps Mr. Harper's most high-profile Tory political appointee.
In the Commons, NDP justice critic Joe Comartin called for the RCMP to be asked to investigate Mr. Wilson and others.
"Mr. Wilson is now hiding behind a so-called private conversation to deny any wrong. That is not good enough," Mr. Comartin said.
"An internal probe by the Prime Minister's staff will not get to the bottom of this scandal. When will the RCMP be called in to investigate the actions of Ian Brodie, Michael Wilson and all the other actors in the NAFTA leak?"
Mr. Comartin noted that the government has failed to reinstate sections of the Security of Information Act that were struck down by a court ruling in 2006. That means that those behind politically motivated leaks might escape charges for indiscretions that were once illegal.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson replied that the government is "certainly prepared" to propose a new bill to fill the gap in the law, but provided no specifics.
You cannot claim to have known none of the above, because I've already written this, here, before, yet you are content to ignore it, and repeat the opposite mantra. Because it's true? No.
Yet you accuse others here of ducking and dodging the facts???
Despite repeatedly bringing your own mischaracterizations and falsehoods to your attentinon previously - albeit without comment from you, I've noticed - you simply repeat your falsehoods again and again as though they are true.
Yet you accuse others here of disseminating untruths???
You may think that employing such underhanded methods is just fighting fire with fire. It's not. You're just burning down your own house in spite. And it's not a pretty sight - or site - to see.
Careful JFK Guy, thank you. You ably expose Joseph's bizarre hypocrisy in this matter, and just about every other point he's making can be similarly deconstructed.
But, as you also so ably point out, he will not listen and has no intention of ever considering that his mind might actually be changed by newly revealed facts.
It is, you're correct, not pretty to see. But still, for a while, it's been a fascinating observation of the descent into the close-minded tyranny we've assumed for so long were the exclusive domain of the rightwingnuts.
Joseph is demonstrating for us how it's done, how a really bright and rational guy can become the left's version of O'Reilly.
It's so sad, also because I have enjoyed comments from you and Aitchd and Jamie and Sofia and dr. elsewhere and Beeta and Peter and several others for a while now. But this has just become so destructive and pathetic and boring. Wish there were some way to stay in touch.
Let's just do what we can to see that McBush is defeated in November. Following Joseph's lead is clearly not the way to go on that count. Or any, that I can discern.
I'm dodging nothing, although sometimes I don't read old threads. (Start your own blog, and you'll soon see how that could happen.)
If you've responded to a post that is older, and if you want me to see your words, drop me a line to inform me. Certainly that is not an unreasonable request?
At any rate, I am grateful for JFK guy's contribution here. I'll defer to his assessment of the Globe and Mail's political orientation; his words do not differ too greatly from my own.
The point is, he has proven that Goolsbee did have the meeting. He has even given us all sorts of new details.
I wish he would now address the issue of Goolsbee's later fib that he had no connection to the Obama camapign, even though he had (in earlier interviews) been identified as Obama's chief adviser.
Any proof here of a Hillary communication? Nope.
We are still down to one (1) unnamed source offering a very vague statement which was denied by the Canadian government. CJFKG says that there must be a second source, based on his experience with the Globe and Mail. Maybe. I see no evidence of it. And I've seen plenty of evidence over the years that even our most esteemed periodicals were willing to relax their standards when it comes to those awful, awful Clintons. (Remember when major newspapers were reduced to reliance on Drudge and the National Enquirer?)
Do you really expect me to be angry that the truth about Goolsbee was leaked?
There have been plenty of times when a leak told us something embarrassing about Bush. (The pre-Katrina warning video was a classic example.) Some Republican pundits tried to turn the argument around -- "How DARE the liberal media expose this material?" -- but they soon gave up. The argument is a loser.
So how have I dodged?
(By the way, if you really want to know what happened with dr e, write to me.)
I should add this: Previous news reports have Brodie denying making the statement about Clinton. Nobody has stepped forward to say "Brodie is bieng misleading."
Maybe that will happen in the future. Hasn't happened yet.
So the Goolsbee thing is the only aspect of this story that we know is real.
Speaking of ducking -- you still haven't addressed the REAL issue. What the hell is Obama doing relying on guys like Goolsbee and Liebman for chief advice?
NAFTA isn't really the issue anymore -- the action is in Asia. And Goolsbee is on record as saying that he is as firm in his support for Free Trade as Dubya is.
Both Liebman and Goolsbee parrot W's argument that Social Security is in trouble and needs reform. (Do some reading on that issue, and you'll see how W fudged the numbers.)
You still haven't talked about that.
Listen close. Somewhere in the distance, you can hear the ghost of Mel Blanc saying...
"Duck Dodgers...in the Twenty-First and one-tenth CEN-tury!"
Post a Comment